Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-17-Speech-3-036"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-05-17"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:IIA on budgetary discipline and sound financial management – Conclusion of the IIA on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"fi"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060517.3.3-036"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-05-17-Speech-3-0372
lpv:speaker	lp:Esko Seppänen2
lpv:spokenAs	vice-chair; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2004-09-21--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Vasemmistoliitto (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Kazakhstan, EU-Kyrgyzstan and EU-Uzbekistan Parliamentary Cooperation Committees, and for relations with Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 member_of_the_bureau; EUL/NGL (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; CONT (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 substitute; ITRE (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; BUDG (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, Commissioner, on behalf of my group I wish to thank the rapporteur, Mr Böge, for the work he has done with regard to the matter now before us. It is not his fault that the Council keelhauled the Commission and Parliament and bruised the political credibility of these institutions. The biggest miscalculation was made by the Commission in its original proposal for economic guidelines. It miscalculated the Council’s relative powers and created expectations that were far too great. The report by Parliament’s temporary committee was produced on the basis of these expectations. It was difficult for many Members to come to terms with Mr Böge’s sense of realism at the time. While the Council was editing the Commission’s proposal, the Commission continued to create expectations that were too high. President Barroso marketed the Commission’s view on the basis of total miscalculations. He has lost face in this process, as has Parliament as a whole. Parliament’s decision to reject the conclusions drawn by the Council in December 2005 at the time established a good basis for further talks. The Council, however, showed the Commission and Parliament that the EU’s money came from the Member States. The Commission and Parliament may in practice only be involved in decision-making relating to the EU’s expenditure: in the redistribution of cash within the framework dictated by the Council. Postponing resolution of the problems until the mid-term review at the end of 2009 will not increase Parliament’s power in EU budgetary matters. On the revenues side, we have failed to get rid of the unjustified UK special rebate. On the expenditure side, the fact that the Council kept to a 1% level for payment appropriations undermined a budget which could have achieved European added value, as the Community budget would have been more than just the sum of the Member States’ contributions. My group would have liked a more constructive budgetary framework for the period 2007–2013. This we have not got, and we are voting against the adoption of Mr Böge’s report. We have not achieved the sort of flexibility in the financial framework that would have been necessary for good financial management. Instead, the Member States are putting more money in the budget for the militarisation of the EU. The Council has cleverly exploited a situation in which the federalists in the Commission and Parliament will not be able to cope with a new EU-wide crisis."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph