Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-10-26-Speech-3-007"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051026.2.3-007"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, two questions have often sprung to my mind during this long process that has brought us to the vote at first reading. First, what is the budget? Is it a dull accounting exercise or a key political act? Secondly, do the decisions – or rather ‘codecisions’ – that we make actually correspond to our citizens’ priorities, and is it really our job to fund these priorities or would it be fairer if they were funded out of national or regional budgets?
We have made some specific choices by increasing the amounts for youth-oriented programmes. Before this budget there had perhaps never been such a large increase for the three fundamental youth programmes: Socrates, Leonardo and YOUTH. We must send out a strong message to the young people of Europe and remain consistent with the Youth Pact, which the Governments themselves launched a few months ago. We must set up new pilot schemes, such as Erasmus for young entrepreneurs and Erasmus for upper secondary school students (16- to 18-year-olds).
Lastly, external actions. We have seen a paradoxical situation arise in recent years. On the one hand, the European Union has rightly been called upon to play a more united and incisive role in world affairs, yet on the other there has also been a demand, particularly from the Member States, to retain the power of veto on external policy as well as an utterly inadequate level of funding.
The people of Europe are thus all the more justified in lamenting the Union’s substantial lack of influence on the broader international stage. The Community budget, roughly amounting to a mere EUR 5 billion, is now expected to cover reconstruction in Iraq, reconstruction in Afghanistan, the tsunami emergency, humanitarian aid, strengthening democracy, protecting human rights in crisis regions, fighting poverty and destitution, cooperation programmes in the Mediterranean and the Balkans, and dozens and dozens of other major initiatives. On top of that, it has just been announced – and rightly so – that we need to increase our aid for the reconstruction of Pakistan in the post-earthquake emergency there. Then it has also been announced that we will make a more substantial contribution to assist the Middle East peace process.
All that means that we are caught in an untenable position between these political statements, commitments and – I venture to say – duties, and the heading 4 appropriation, which is only EUR 5 billion. This contradictory position leads our fellow citizens to see us all – the European Parliament, the Commission and the European Council – as classic cases of ineffectual leaders. Those, then, are the issues that I believe concern our budget.
I regard the strategy adopted by the Committee on Budgets as being based on the following principles: remaining consistent with previous years’ approaches; leaving all possible strategic options open to Parliament, so that a final decision can be made during conciliation in November, without nullifying the interinstitutional agreement at this juncture, but making maximum use of the flexibility instrument to stand by all our priorities; guaranteeing an adequate general level of payments; ensuring an adequate general level of Structural Fund payments; providing maximum support to achieve the Lisbon goals by increasing funding for small and medium-sized enterprises, research, the environment and above all youth policies; increasing the financial commitment under heading 4 (external actions), where the ceiling does not allow funding for the new emergencies that every year are added to the existing ones – Afghanistan, Iraq, the tsunami – at the same time as Parliament’s traditional priorities. I shall spare you the figures, which you know at least as well as I do, and move on to the political conclusion.
Representatives of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, that is our position. It is a strong and reasonable position for an ambitious yet unpretentious budget. It is a position on which we are united, thanks to responsible contributions by all the political groups. I should like to thank all the group coordinators in the Committee on Budgets and all those Members who have contributed to our work and enabled us to examine the 900 or more amendments, and who thus far have ensured a very broad consensus for our platform. I am grateful to the Commissioner for the cooperation that has been established, which has grown stronger and stronger and become invaluable, to the extent that our positions have become very broadly convergent. I thank Mr Lewis, the Council representative: I thank him today for the perfect courtesy with which he has conducted his dialogue with Parliament; I should like to thank him tomorrow for the positive responses that I hope the Council will give us during conciliation.
My thanks also go to Chairman Lewandowski and the staff and secretaries that have assisted me, particularly my peerless assistant – please excuse this personal note, but it is sincere and well-deserved – in the gruelling work of recent months; I am sure she will continue to do it.
My final message is again addressed directly to the Council. We often say that there is bound to be a terrible tug-of-war between Parliament and the Council between first and second reading. However, I ask the Council: is that really the case? Is it inevitable that blood will run in Charlemagne’s golden halls? Do we have to come armed with Article 272 hidden up our sleeve? Is it so very difficult to understand that what is at stake is not a collection of crazy corporative demands but, more simply and dramatically, the future and the fate of Europe, of our institutions, and of the relationship of trust between us and our fellow citizens – a relationship that has worn very thin but can still be mended and revived?
This budget is a bridge to the new programming period. It comes at a terrible time in the life and history of the Union. It cannot escape you, Mr Lewis, your representatives who are here today, or even Mr Blair, that there are challenges that no one can face alone, no matter how faithful you are to the British tradition, from Churchill onwards, whereby you are more partners than part of united Europe. These challenges, from cohesion to competitiveness to external actions, can only be faced by the Union if it has sufficient financial means to do so.
The new global scenarios, which could not even be foreseen when the current financial perspectives were decided in 1999, place pressing demands on us to which we must respond appropriately. I think very few people are asking for less Europe, while many are demanding more Europe. My hope is that the second half of the UK Presidency will present us with two shining, decisive outcomes to get us back on our feet. Together we can deliver a good budget for 2006, and together we can deliver the new financial perspectives by the end of this year, ushering in a new period of confidence in the European project.
I believe these two questions, which apply both to the annual budget and to the financial perspectives, come before any analysis of budget lines and spending categories. They form the crux of a debate that has to rise above arid technicalities, because it is an altogether political debate. Whether the European Union should take certain measures and not others is not something that should be decided behind closed doors, fuelling a stale, vacuous dialectic between proponents of stringent and
attitudes.
This is a central theme of the European political agenda: I have to say to the Council representatives that I am astounded that there is no place for such questions at tomorrow’s Summit of Heads of State or Government. How can the Union’s social agenda be drafted without also linking it to the decisions made in the annual and multiannual budgets? That is a mystery that I hope will be answered today in the speech by President-in-Office Blair.
The financial resources needed to carry out our work are a key issue. The time has come to take the bull by the horns. The issue is this: are there responsibilities that have to be met at a supranational level? Is there European added value in respect of national public spending? What are these policies and programmes and where do they fit into the European budget?
I shall give you some examples. First, cohesion policy: is it a necessary policy and who should make it? There is no doubt that the Union is still marked by social, economic and regional imbalances. It is therefore imperative to promote economic development by addressing structural shortcomings, stimulating sustainable growth and significantly boosting employment and competitiveness. This policy needs to be made at European level because that is the only level at which it can be effective in terms of costs, procedure rationalisation and standardisation, resource sharing, objective setting and exchange of good practice.
My second example is research. Does research policy need to be made at European level? In other words, looking beyond the individual Member States and private players, should there also be a direct research commitment at European level? The competitive gap that has opened up in recent years, leaving our continent lagging behind both emerging and established economies, is plain for all to see. Can we close the gap just with protective measures, or do we instead need to enhance European research efforts by creating centres of excellence, adding value to industry and small and medium-sized enterprises, promoting cooperation between the public and private sectors especially through research infrastructure and public-private partnerships, disseminating knowledge, and networking our researchers working around the world?
As you know, the European Union trains more science and engineering PhDs than the United States, but many of them decide to emigrate or switch to different careers. There are currently some 85 000 to 90 000 European researchers working in the scientific research sector in the United States. Increasing investment at European level can surely help to improve this situation. In this respect, a look at data from around the world shows that the European Union has a long way to go to catch up with its main competitors.
In 2001, the European Union spent 1.9% of its GDP on research, whereas Japan earmarked 3.1% and the United States 2.8%. The key programme for our actions in this area, as we all know, is the sixth framework programme, and the seventh framework programme is currently nearing completion. Can we leave these instruments without adequate funding?
My third example is education, training, culture and youth policies. Mr Blair is right to remind us – as he did in his passionate and well-received inaugural speech for the UK Presidency here in this House – that we have to modernise our social model and drastically cut the dreadful figure of 20 million unemployed by raising productivity, training more workers in the sciences and making human capital our top priority. His position is likely to become less effective, however, unless it is accompanied by consistent decisions on the financial means to implement it."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples