Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-17-Speech-3-035"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060517.3.3-035"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in contrast to the many Members who have spoken before me, I would like to explain why we think this compromise is a bad one and why it is that we cannot endorse it. We believe that the Financial Perspective that we will now have for the next seven years has to be judged on the basis of whether or not the budget is geared to the future, whether or not it helps us to sort out together the problems with which we are faced, and whether it really is oriented towards Europe. It is for that reason that my criticisms are primarily directed at the Council.
Over the last few years, we have suffered a great deal as a result of this debate about one per cent and net contributors, which gives a voice, not to the European spirit and to concern for what benefits Europe, but to small-mindedness and narrow nationalism. What we are dealing with at the moment is a nationalistic deformation of Europe’s foundations that is detrimental to every plan we make for the future. Contrary to what previous speakers have said about there being no alternative, we do believe that one would have been possible. We could of course have gone back to the annual budget procedure, and we in this House would have had 30 billion more with which we would have been able to do something about our own priorities.
Let us consider the messages that are being sent out. Over recent years, Parliament and the Commission have acted very responsibly, and have done so out of a sense of responsibility to Europe. What can we in Europe do better than the nation states on their own? That is what we need to concentrate on; that is what will win the European people over, but what has happened now? We have a structurally conservative budget that keeps agricultural policy as it was and makes no attempt to transfer funds to rural development. Just as before, agricultural export subsidies are in place, ruining, among other things, the development of African markets and contributing to the refugee problems about which we are always complaining. This is where the European Union’s policies are wrong, and I find it very regrettable that there has been no change in this respect and that the Council has stonewalled in this way.
My second concern is that, following the Council’s December meeting, it was clear that most of the savings had been made in the areas to do with the knowledge-based society and education, which runs completely counter to its own modernisation rhetoric. They are always getting on their hind legs and saying that Europe must become the most economically successful area in the world by 2010, that we must develop the knowledge-based society, that we must do more for education and exchange in Europe, and then the budget for this gets cut by 50%. This House may well now, by dint of a great common effort, have been able to make some small improvements, but there are only 210 000 students on Erasmus, and we want at least 285 000. Even that compromise is no kind of triumph, but rather no more than a drop in the ocean.
Let me now move on to energy policy, where Europe ought to take a joint approach and move away from oil, investing much more in renewable energies in order to arrive at a new position that will win over the people’s hearts and minds. We have succeeded in doing none of those things and must therefore come to the conclusion that this Budget is quite simply not forward-looking enough. The Council stood in the way of much of it, and that is why we cannot go along with it.
The last thing I want to say is that I am very grateful to the negotiating team and to Mr Böge for the dedication with which they handled the proceedings. We will have no shortage of work to do in the coming weeks and months."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples