Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-03-13-Speech-2-028"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070313.6.2-028"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the Commission for this document, which is timely, coming as it does at the start of our budget procedure. It is consistent with our priorities, which are the Lisbon Strategy, the fight against climate change and its effects, judicial cooperation and so on, but it overlooks the importance of the social dimension and of social cohesion in the future of the Union.
Finally, I am surprised at how brief were the allusions made to the revision exercise scheduled to begin in 2008. This leads me to address the Commission directly: is the revision of the financial perspective a taboo subject?
I have already expressed my curiosity to know the estimated additional cost of the better regulation initiative. Could you provide us with the estimates for which we have been waiting for so long?
Finally, I should like to see the spotlight put on communication this year. It is mentioned in this text, but the Commission’s actions need to be refocused on this matter. The Europe of democracy is at a standstill, the citizens are turning their backs on it and our texts are more and more ambitious. We are far from achieving our dreams.
Your priorities are needed to enable the Union to rise to the challenges of globalisation. Nevertheless, I question the fact that neither the financial perspective nor the programmes as they have been codecided leave us with much room for manoeuvre.
To be more precise, with regard to competitiveness, growth and employment, if the margin is left unchanged – at EUR 70 million – if new priorities are announced regarding Frontex and Eurojust and if three new transport agencies are created, then certain policies are liable to suffer: I am thinking of the seventh FRDP, which could have difficulties in getting off the ground; I am thinking of the trans-European transport network, funding for which is absolutely crucial; I am thinking of all those social policies that are not yet sufficiently developed; and I am thinking of the CIP, which is a vital tool of the Lisbon Strategy.
We ought not to reduce the commitments of these already badly-managed policies. It is not only European growth that is at stake here, but also our objectives regarding competitiveness, employment and solidarity.
As regards the freedom, security and justice policies, the margin of EUR 32 million is very small. Increasing the funding for policies arising out of Frontex and Eurojust will inevitably reduce the resources originally allocated to other vital programmes, such as the integration of third-country nationals and such as a truly ambitious policy aimed at refugees, the protection of fundamental rights.
The European Commission is implying that these programmes are not yet up to speed. Why, though, were they not implemented quicker?
With regard to agricultural issues, I join my colleagues from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development in expressing serious doubts about the proposal for a single CMO covering all agricultural sectors. This could result in a lack of consideration being given to the specific characteristics of some agricultural produce.
Given that the scope of the ‘health check’ exercise is not yet known or detailed in the Commission proposals, I would ask you to provide some clarification on this matter. The recent statements made by the Commissioner for Agriculture contradict what you wrote.
As for the Union’s actions, we are anxious to see all of the declared priorities upheld. We cannot accept our priorities regarding health, education and promotion being neglected in favour of energy."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples