Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-06-Speech-2-195"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050906.31.2-195"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, when the foundations of the European Communities were laid over half a century ago, Poland and the other new Member States were part of the Soviet bloc. Our only option was to look on enviously as past conflicts were overcome by means of economic cooperation. We believed at the time, and we continue to believe today, that development and solidarity are the main goals of the European Union, which Poland eventually joined.
Yet any satisfaction one might derive from this fact is marred by developments that are now becoming ever more evident in certain net payer countries. These developments are a result not only of an economic slow-down, but also of governing principles of action. Excessive labour costs are reducing the competitiveness of these economies, and their overregulation leads to budgetary deficits. In turn, the latter make these countries more inclined to cut back on their payments to the EU.
The current state of progress on the 2006 EU budget is a cause for great concern. The Council has once again made cuts to the Commission’s proposal, reducing it by over EUR 1 billion to 1.01% of GNI. This is a bad sign, all the more so because the deadlock on the Financial Perspective for 2007-2013 has also not been broken. If the Financial Perspective has not been adopted by spring of next year, the reduced 2006 budget could serve as the basis for future budgets, and the worrying developments I mentioned a short time ago could persist for many years.
There are currently two approaches to the issue of EU finances. The first of these favours spending on development to the detriment of agricultural subsidies, whilst the second gives preference to the social dimension of the EU project over the Lisbon Strategy. It would appear that the first of these approaches promotes development at the expense of solidarity, whereas the second promotes solidarity at the expense of development, but it would be mistaken to believe that development and solidarity are alternatives to each other. Such a belief would merely boost selfish national interests, and, in so doing, result in a disastrous compromise that delivers neither development nor solidarity. Furthermore, it would make real the utopia of ‘more Europe for less money’.
The main reason why the determination of certain net payers to cut their spending is so worrying is that it poses a threat to the EU’s fundamental goals, namely development and solidarity."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples