Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-06-15-Speech-2-501"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100615.30.2-501"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Commissioner Lewandowski, Mr Espadas Moncalvillo, I am disappointed both by today’s reply from the Spanish President-in-Office of the Council and that of Commissioner Lewandowski.
What you are doing here is passing the buck. Mr Espadas Moncalvillo says: yes, we need the Commission to draw up something. Then, Commissioner Lewandowski quite rightly says: we need a political vision for the future of the European Union, and yet he does not tell us what that might look like. Today, he simply said again: yes, we have to talk about it and we will submit a paper. Commission and Council, you have had many years to make progress on this political initiative. May I remind you that, in 2006, when the majority of the European Parliament voted through the current financial perspective, that was on the condition that there would be a mid-term review and that all income and expenditure would be put to the test. Austrian Chancellor Schüssel said on that occasion: ‘If we do not come up with a new system, we will be at each other’s throats when the next financial perspective comes along’. We have to stop the UK rebate and we really have to know where we stand in terms of our political objectives, but obviously we also need to agree a budget. So far, this action has failed to materialise and I regret that deeply. What we really need is a debate about the sources of finance for the European budget. Do we not, for example, need the CO
tax and the financial transaction tax, precisely so that we can prevent the new tax burden falling on our citizens, while setting up a transparent basis for the European budget?
On the subject of income, everyone is saying that we cannot simply blunder on with our agricultural policy, especially after the health check study, and that it must be more environmentally friendly and more sustainable. No proposals for this have been mentioned as yet. In terms of the structural funds, if we are talking about climate policy, then it is patently clear that we have to change our structural policy, too, and that it has to become more sustainable, if we are seriously to take on our common climate change objectives.
That is the case, too, with all our education policy objectives, which means the Europe 2020 strategy. Or, consider our research policy: if we want to encourage our European talent in a different way and invest more in intelligence and education, then that needs to be reflected in the next financial perspective. Likewise, if we want to play a responsible role in foreign policy and crisis prevention, that too needs to be reflected in the European budget. While we are now all aware that Member States are responsible for reducing their debt, we must have a European understanding for our common global interests in the world, and that must be reflected in our next financial perspective. We should not waste any more time because we have already wasted years on the old structures. For that reason, we urgently need to get this review under way so that we really can identify new priorities."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"2"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples