Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-06-15-Speech-2-493"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100615.30.2-493"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets we are putting to the Commission and the Council these oral questions concerning the review of the Multiannual Financial Framework at a time of incredible economic and EU policy challenges and at a time when questions are also being asked about the sustainability of the European Union project. We are tabling these oral questions because they are linked to the joint statements and promises made in May 2006 as part of the interinstitutional budget agreement, which no longer appear to apply. That, at least, is our impression.
On top of this, there is the implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon, with new priorities for foreign trade, sport, space research, climate change and energy, to name but a few. That means that we also have to find room in our budget for these new priorities. Article 311 states explicitly that the Union must provide itself with the means necessary to achieve its objectives and carry through its policies without taking on debt.
You could say that the Statement on the Budget Review of 17 May 2006 contains everything that is necessary for a thorough review of the decisions made then and for their revision, if necessary, as well as an express assurance of the involvement and participation of Parliament in the opinion forming process associated with that.
As the rapporteur in charge of this issue at the time, with disappointment, I have to ask the question today whether these agreements and commitments were genuine or whether they were just a sham from the very start, a sham that was needed simply to achieve an agreement in the Council. Commissioner Lewandowski, is the Commission hesitating with the analysis and proposals envisaged just because the Council does not want to budge on this? You need to decide whether you want to side with the Council or with Parliament.
To this I would add that Article 4 of the interinstitutional agreement makes it expressly clear that, in the case of any review of the treaty that has budgetary implications, the Multiannual Finance Framework and the interinstitutional agreement would need to be revised accordingly. It is these commitments, starting with the European External Action Service, and the aforementioned priorities that are making revision necessary, not only that of a technical nature but, most definitely, also the political revision of Budget IIV and the Multiannual Financial Framework. While they will not all need to be carried out in the first year, they will most certainly affect multiannual planning.
At this juncture, I would add that we are affronted by the decision that was hastily made during the Stabilisation Rescue Package, although it was, of course, necessary and there was no alternative but, at the same time, it has, to some extent, ridden roughshod over the rights of Parliament in budgetary matters. The Commission should consider whether it should make use of Article 124, that is, whether it should take the initiative to arrange regular meetings at the highest level, the level of presidents of the institutions, as part of the budgetary procedure, in order to finally move these delicate issues forward. This is because we should also, hopefully in time for or during conciliation, talk about the revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework – Article 312 concerning the Approval Procedure – and the political revision of Budget IIV, also from the perspective of political necessity, about making adjustments in line with the Treaty of Lisbon, about the margins, the reviews, flexibilities, political projects of the future, such as Galileo and ITER, and the European External Action Service, in order to define projects with European added value and, where possible, to exercise restraint of course.
Speaking here today, I have to ask both the Commission and the Council very seriously if they think that all these agreements should now be regarded as dead letters. Or are you genuinely prepared to consult Parliament? It is in the interests of the Treaty of Lisbon that we take all necessary measures during the financial framework adoption procedure to facilitate adoption of this act. I have not seen any signs of this to date, which is why I need to ask you the following question: are you prepared and do you consider yourself able to revise the Multiannual Financial Framework while, at the same time, working with us, reconciling it with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon? Your replies, both those of the Commission and the Council, will decide our future cooperation on budgetary matters in the next few years."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples