Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-09-21-Speech-2-561"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100921.20.2-561"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Mr Lewandowski, ladies and gentlemen, we are currently faced with the difficult task of consolidating public budgets in the European Union and this is bound to have an impact on our discussions.
Under the terms of Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure, we are submitting to you today an interim report on the proposal for a Council regulation laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2007-2013. I would like to explain to the Council that we are highly dissatisfied because no negotiations have yet taken place concerning the adjustment of the multiannual financial framework on the basis of the Treaty of Lisbon. This adjustment based on Point 4 of the existing interinstitutional agreement is as follows: In the case of a revision of a treaty which will have an impact on the budget, the existing interinstitutional agreement must be adjusted accordingly. This will take the form of a consensus between the institutions.
In addition, Article 6(4) of the Treaty of Lisbon states: ‘The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies.’
In fact, the public budget of the European Union has come off badly in the public discussions. Most people do not know that we are not allowed to get into debt. Most people forget that during the period 2000-2008, there was an annual increase of 4.4% in the budgets of the 27 Member States. During this period, the increase in the European budget was 4.5%, which is at almost the same level. However, in this period, we also had to accommodate the financial enlargement of the European Union from 15 to 27 Member States. Even in this financial perspective, we have always remained well below the upper limit of the multiannual financial framework, both with regard to our commitments and, in particular, in the budgets which have been adopted, to our payments. In the 2010 budget, we were around EUR 12 billion below the multiannual budgetary perspective. You do not need to say anything to us about sensible and restrained budgetary policy.
The Commission and the Council prefer to regard the necessary amendments relating to the Treaty of Lisbon as being of a technical nature. However, should we let ourselves be tied down without the necessary political changes taking place? I do not believe that we should. We want to see the necessary political adjustments being made in order to ensure that the Union has the ability to act both internally and externally over the next few years.
As we all know, the Treaty of Lisbon has assigned new tasks to the European Union, ranging from the External Action Service to space policy. We are also currently looking at the additional financing for the ITER project. Furthermore, the European Council of Heads of State or Government has decided on a financial stabilisation mechanism, which bypasses the budgetary authority. At the same time, the Council is constantly making promises that agencies, bananas and ITER will be financed. They have put together a jumble of figures which no one can accept.
We have come to the overall conclusion in this interim report that a change is needed in the multiannual financial framework, including the flexibility mechanism in the existing regulations. It must also be obvious that we cannot have any new agencies without corresponding additional funding. We should make it clear that no negotiations need to take place without a minimum of flexibility in the budget. This will allow us to ensure that there are flexible majority decisions, in the same way as there were before the Treaty of Lisbon, with regard to the first stage of the revision of financial programming below 0.03% of the gross national income. Overall, we need a greater degree of flexibility and the creation of adequate reserves for every heading.
I would like to ask the Council not to take such a sceptical approach. This does not change the fact that we must come to an agreement during the annual budgetary procedure. However, the alternatives for the Council in the case of all these multiannual projects and new priorities are ultimately as follows: Do we want to have disputes and difficult negotiations for three years in a row on the same subject? That really is a waste of human resources. Or do we want to find a sensible overall solution to the questions to which I have referred? I am calling for the start of really serious political negotiations between the Commission, Council and Parliament on the basis of the treaties."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples