Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-17-Speech-3-020"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060517.3.3-020"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The opinion of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs on the Interinstitutional Agreement is a positive one. I wish to point out that the Committee on Constitutional Affairs has been asked to deliver an opinion on the compatibility of the Interinstitutional Agreement with the treaties in force. There is no legal obstacle to its adoption.
Although it is not for the Committee to assess the merits of the agreement, it should be noted that, on an institutional level, the agreement respects Parliament’s prerogatives as an arm of the budgetary authority. In this report, Parliament emphasises that future financial frameworks should be set up for a five-year period, in line with the terms of office of Parliament and the Commission. This in our view is a necessary step towards greater public scrutiny and democratic monitoring of the Union’s budgetary options.
The compromise that has been reached between the parties does not live up to the vision and ambition shared by many Members of Parliament, myself included. At various times during the negotiations, the opinions of the Council, especially as regards financial appropriations, fell well short of the statements of intent expressed by the negotiators in successive conclusions of European Councils and in numerous speeches made by national and European politicians.
In spite of the difficulties, Parliament was able to obtain this satisfactory compromise, which safeguards cohesion as a fundamental principle of the Union and the priority attached to the Lisbon Strategy. For Parliament to give its public assent, it does not need to consider that the agreement reached is perfect. With its shortcomings, the current text represents huge progress from the initial negotiating positions, and is infinitely better than brandishing an interinstitutional iron fist, which would have been irresponsible and for which the Union and its citizens would have paid a heavy price.
The agreement on the review 2009 ensures that Parliament will participate on an equal footing. The review will cover all aspects of the Union’s system of spending resources and will have to address the issue of the reform of own resources. This key debate will benefit from the experience of implementing the agreement before us. This interinstitutional agreement was negotiated under extremely difficult circumstances. It is clearly a success and good news for Europe, especially given the atmosphere of crisis surrounding projects and leadership that has beset Europe in recent years.
I should particularly like to commend Mr Böge, who led the negotiations on Parliament’s behalf with great skill and personal commitment on such a broad, complex issue, in a hostile political climate characterised by a crisis of confidence in the European project, by deep differences between the Member States and the institutions, and by a degree of confusion over the Union’s objectives."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples