Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-10-19-Speech-2-381"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101019.21.2-381"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, today, the European Commission has adopted its Communication on the budget review to be communicated immediately, here in Parliament, to the representatives elected by the people.
I would like to mention one more factor of the budgetary review, and that is that the discussion of priorities is always overshadowed by the net balance, a
type of approach to the budget which has to do with the complex revenue side of the European budget. However, an incentive to find a way out of this vicious circle would be if we had open reflection without taboos and where we could analyse not only spending, but also the revenue side of the European budget.
As President Barroso stated in his ‘State of the Union’ speech, this is not a discussion about spending less or more; this is about how to spend more intelligently. The budgetary review provides a number of suggestions on how to generate European added value, how to establish the new legitimisation of the European budget.
It has to be done. We are pooling resources at European level, allowing Member States to cut their costs, avoid overlaps and get a better return on their investment.
Let us take research and infrastructure as an example. This can be done by addressing common challenges in a coherent and coordinated way, especially if there are cross-border implications which are typical in the case of energy, security, migration and climate change.
It can be done by demonstrating solidarity in the case of natural or man-made disasters; and it can and should be done by delivering tools to allow us to act more forcefully on the global arena and make Europe more visible as the largest donor (55% of total assistance).
This is not enough. What we need – and this is also part of the budgetary review – is administrative expenditure self-restraint. We also need a much more professional management of large-scale projects and – this is the separate part of the annex to the budget review – the innovative financial instrument must go beyond the 1% by volume of the European budget.
Own resources is what makes most sense at the end of the day. (I am perhaps taking time from my final reflection.) It is so easy to criticise the present system as being unfair, complex, and contrary to the treaties, but it is also so easy to provoke unfounded accusations if we enter into discussions on this matter.
It has to be said that the Lisbon Treaty clearly requires that the own resources decision be reached unanimously and it needs to be ratified by all Member States. National tax sovereignty is not at stake.
However, it is worth reflecting on having a system that is closer to the original design, a system that allows the European Union to be more autonomous and allows the Member States to consolidate their public finances by progressively reducing their direct contributions. We could start with the abolishment of this artificial VAT delivery. We are listing six possible candidates: these are mentioned in the paper and quantified more in the annex, but nobody is perfect of course. This is not a replacement for the national contribution. It should be seen only as the supplement.
The budget review is an invitation to, and the opening of, the hot budgetary season in the European Union. I am looking forward to cooperating with the European Parliament. This is our common responsibility to demonstrate that the European Union is capable of responding to the challenges, and the budget – when intelligently targeting the goals – could be the tool for renewing confidence in our European project.
This was originally foreseen for 2008-2009 but the chain of events – the late adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, the late appointment of the Commission and then a new EU 2020 strategy – explains why this is taking place in October 2010.
Thank you for your attention.
The budgetary review should be seen as an integral part of our reflection on how to make Europe more competitive, dynamic, inclusive and sustainable. However, it cannot be separated from the political goals. This is politics in figures and, historically, there has always been a specific political context associated with the budgetary debate. In the past, this was about the single market, single currency and enlargement.
We could wish for better political goals this time round, as there are clear new responsibilities stemming from the Lisbon Treaty. It is also clear that we need to find common European answers to common challenges in the areas of climate change, energy, security and migration.
On the other hand, we have a eurosceptic Europe and we have a eurosceptic post-crisis Europe. There is a real tension – or even a contradiction – between both and we should solve this tension. We need consensus; we need unanimity on the next financial perspective.
We should draw on experience, and this is part of the budgetary review. Experience teaches us that we have to readjust the balance between predictability and flexibility. Since its introduction in 1988, the financial framework has brought budgetary peace and predictability to Europe, providing a reasonable time horizon for our regions, farmers and researchers to prepare and realise their projects.
This is a real achievement. However, this predictability came at the price of very limited flexibility, and it has been revealed in the past how much we can be exposed to sudden developments. We can be proud of certain actions – the generous and swift reaction to the Pakistan floods and to the problems in Haiti – but generally, we are slow. It took one year to mobilise money for the food aid facility. We are slowest internally, and quicker in rapid reactions to external challenges.
The lesson therefore is that we need more flexibility. We need to be able to transfer funds and unspent margins more easily, undertake front- and back-loading. In the budgetary review, we propose fixed margins which are bigger at the end of the financial perspective, and also to establish performance-oriented reserves.
Another factor to be taken into account is, of course, the economic crisis, and the new functions of the budget intelligently targeted could serve as an anti-crisis small sectoral and local package. It could become collateral for loans beyond the balance of payments facility. It can act as a toolbox for reinforcing the Stability and Growth Pact."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples