Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-12-14-Speech-3-051"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051214.6.3-051"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, the EU needs a budget, but not at any cost. The Commission’s proposal was optimal and in agreement with the commitments of the Edinburgh Council of 1992. Do you still remember the 1.27% of GNI from Edinburgh?
The European Parliament’s bigger budget is realistic in protecting crucial areas of EU priorities. Our Parliament wants to free the dynamism of new Member States and use it to the advantage of the economy of the whole Union. We should not, as under the humiliating British proposal, penalise them and push them into second class membership status.
The Luxembourg proposal was already scarce and at the limits of acceptability. The British proposal has crossed the red line in terms of the overall level of commitments and unacceptable reduction of funds for the poorest Member States. Non-agreement is better than an agreement that contradicts the very principle of European integration. The budget is not only about figures; it is about principles and policy choices. Reducing the budget when our Union is larger and has new tasks is contrary to logic and common sense. It means amputating EU policies, slice by slice: real salami tactics.
The budget is about the solidarity, cohesion and competitiveness of an enlarged Union, not about charity. We do not want charity. We are not beggars. We want our money back. But, even applying an accountant’s approach, the proposal is contrary to honest business practice. New Members opened their markets and committed themselves to apply high and costly EU standards. Matching transfers of 4% of GNI was a legitimate expectation based on political promise. Limiting that support today means breaking the contract. Our Parliament, showing self-respect, should prevent the erosion of the EU in the name of the impossible and destructive doctrine of ‘more Europe for less money’. The primary source of that doctrine is the 1% budget proposal, the famous ‘Letter of Six’: the proposal to have, to use the words of President Barroso, ‘a mini Europe’. The 1% philosophy means
of the Union and leading the Union into a trap of doing
.
When there is a crisis of leadership – and there is – the European Parliament should take the lead and the responsibility, together with the European Commission, and veto the Council proposal if there is any bottom line set by the Luxembourg proposal.
Best wishes and Merry Christmas to the outgoing British Presidency."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"détricotage"1
"l’impossible"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples