Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-06-15-Speech-2-495"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100615.30.2-495"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, I will start directly with serious answers to the questions, as, if Reimer Böge is asking the questions, that is sufficient reason to take them seriously.
As regards the question on the revision of the financial framework, the report on the functioning of the interinstitutional agreement is now in your hands. This analyses the flexibility and the margins – not as a goal in itself, but in the context of possible new developments.
The conclusion is very clear that the margins are very tight in almost all the headings. We cannot expect, for example, Heading 2 (Agriculture) to supply additional needs whenever there are new needs to be financed. The Commission can only present proposals for the revision of the financial framework when the precise needs are known and cannot be covered by other means, which is not the case so far. Even with ITER, we need commitment for the long-term financing of this large-scale project.
As regards the lines identified as conducive to the 2020 strategy for green, smart and inclusive growth, we have identified around EUR 58 billion in the 2011 draft budget, which is 40% of the budget conducive to these goals listed in the 2020 strategy.
Moving on to the second question about the procedure, the Commission’s basic logic was to align the provisions of the current interinstitutional framework with the new framework of the Lisbon Treaty. The goal was to preserve as much continuity as possible and make as little change as is needed by the new treaty, but on the basic assumption of preserving the same level of flexibility and the same balance of powers between institutions.
We know what is pending given our assumptions. The pending issue is the so-called ‘zero zero free flexibility’ that has been conducive to conciliation since 2007. Everybody who was part of the conciliation is aware that this was necessary and that is why we should defend it. This was the provision about the Council acting by qualified majority to compensate and revise, which has been done on several occasions since 2007. I think there is nothing in the letter and spirit of the new treaty to contradict that level of flexibility, and we are going to be very flexible when it comes to the new innovative drafting of this flexibility article in the Multiannual Financial Framework.
The new budgetary review that is delayed should be the occasion to rise up to the political vision for the future, as clearly stated by Reimer Böge. This is the vocation, not the report on interinstitutional agreement, so we hope to be up to the expectations of Parliament and are, as usual, ready to cooperate."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples