Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-10-19-Speech-2-327"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101019.20.2-327"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, we implement new policies, we accept new challenges, we make commitments to third countries, but when the moment of truth comes, you do not want to fund them with fresh money.
It seems that the instructions from the Council and the Commission are to look after the new priorities but cut the previous ones. We do not agree with this attitude. Moreover, I believe that it can only have two explanations: either there is a lack of responsibility for the actual decisions that have been made, or we could believe that there is an anti-European feeling that is more or less disguised.
To those in the first category, I would say that when one accepts a commitment, one should then fulfil it. We cannot, therefore, agree to the most recent need being dealt with 100% while we forget about those which are apparently less current.
As for those whose sole objective is to cut the European Union budget, I would ask them to think twice. I know that some people are doing this because they do not believe in European integration. In fact, some people, as we have unfortunately seen in this House, do not like the idea of building anything together. They prefer to work for themselves, without caring about their neighbours. However, for now, they are in a minority.
In any case, the Conciliation Committee will have to take a decision, and we agree on the fundamental issues. We, too, want to finance the international thermonuclear experimental reactor (ITER). The question is, how? Do we fund the new priorities by cutting the previous ones, as the Council and Commission want us to do, or do we do it properly?
We reached an agreement and found EUR 1.8 billion for the European Economic Recovery Plan. Why do we now have to cut the framework research programme in order to fund the ITER? Let us be consistent.
We cannot announce the Europe 2020 strategy amidst a great deal of hype, seeking sustainable growth from an economic, social and environmental point of view and attempting to achieve what the Lisbon strategy failed to achieve, and then immediately go on to cut, for example, research expenditure, in order to fund other research expenditure. They are justifying this to us by saying that we are in an era of cuts.
However, the thing is that they cut the budget every year, and the current financial framework was adopted in 2005 when we were in a period of economic boom! That is why we are arguing over a few hundred million euro: because of their lack of ambition in 2005 and because we are in a period of crisis.
They should not tell us that the treasuries of the Member States are going to go bankrupt due to the efforts that we are asking for. I just want to point out that we are talking about a budgetary effort equivalent to 0.003% of the Union’s gross national product. I think that is quite acceptable."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples