Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-10-23-Speech-2-200"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071023.23.2-200"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Thank you Mr President. The honourable Members Mr Virrankoski and Mr Itälä have dealt with the budgetary matters very competently. I have great respect for their work, within the given terms of reference. But that is the problem: they are forced to work within the given terms of reference. The EU’s budgetary process is profoundly outmoded and therefore beneath contempt.
The basic principle is always this: more money is coming in, so what are we going to invest it in? This is a 50-year-old organisation, which for that reason should focus on zero budgeting. We must ask the following question: if we were starting today (and not 50 years ago), what would we invest our budgetary resources in? Would we invest them in creating the Economic and Social Committee or the Committee of the Regions? Would we invest nearly half in a protectionist agricultural policy, in PR and marketing for products that could not otherwise be sold? Would we invest in subsidies for tobacco production, for producing tobacco that cannot be sold in the normal way, at the same time as we are by and large banning smoking in the EU? Would we invest in Structural Funds which take almost all the remainder of the entire budget, thereby deciding that countries can receive money centrally from the EU budget provided it goes to a certain kind of regional policy? The answer is – as I am convinced
sitting here in the building (which is not many) would say – no, we would not do that.
The question is then: how can we approach the issue? Well, we cannot do it if we are not prepared to look at the fundamental budgetary issues from scratch and then to work from there. We are therefore in completely the wrong place. If we conduct a normal economic analysis and consider what should be done with budget funds at EU level that are spent through Brussels, it is allocating money that the Member States would not otherwise be able to invest, for example in basic research. We all know from economic theory that basic research is completely underfunded on the market. There are always freeloaders there. It is assumed that someone else will pay the costs of basic research and when it is all completed, it is available to us all. There are many such areas and an incredibly small amount of money goes there. We talk about it, but we do nothing. In most cases money goes to what was decided 30-50 years ago. That is scandalous. We also have an EU that is buying buildings around Europe in the belief that it is cheaper. That is an irresponsible way to act, speculating with taxpayers’ money. It should not continue. We must initiate a discussion on what the EU should do with the money we receive. What we are doing right perhaps takes 10-15% of all the funds. The rest goes to preposterous things, and to different kinds of PR work, such as the money for adaptation to globalisation. Individual states that compete with one another to find good institutional solutions are what created Europe and its success. Let us keep that. Thank you very much."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples