Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-11-23-Speech-2-405"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101123.37.2-405"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Presidents, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on the budget comes at a time when our fellow citizens are having doubts because of the weakness of their currency and when Europe is rightly rallying in support of the Irish economy.
My group fully supports the objective not only of capping but also of reducing the Member States’ budget contributions. Indeed, the extremely serious nature of the debt crisis must lead to a complete overhaul of European public finances. This is not just about dividing up tasks between national budgets and European budgets; it is also about seeking out all possible forms of mutualisation in order to make savings.
Presidents, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) supports the two demands made by the Council on 15 October: for the EU budget to contribute to common financial discipline and for the funding of European objectives to be guaranteed. That is all we are aiming for in the negotiations on the 2011 budget, and we are confident that an agreement can be reached if the Council Presidency negotiates effectively with its colleagues in Brussels.
Contrary to what may have been said about the European Parliament’s objectives in these negotiations, this is not about power struggles or institutional disputes, nor is it about ignoring the difficulties faced by our Member States or the public debt crisis from which we are all suffering. No, it is about ensuring that Europe can honour its commitments. Commitments in the social sphere, and here I am thinking of education and lifelong learning; commitments to the victims of natural disasters, and here I am thinking of assistance for countries affected by food riots; and commitments to programmes that create jobs and growth, such as Galileo and ITER.
The reality is that, by looking at things from an accounting point of view rather than from a political point of view, the few Member States that continue to block the negotiations are harming the interests of the 500 million Europeans. By making the European Parliament out to be the villain of the piece, and by suggesting that it wants to spend at a time when the Member States are tightening their belts, that it wants to exercise the powers conferred on it by the Treaty of Lisbon to the detriment of saving and of Europeans, they are diverting attention from the reality of the problems that exist.
What is that reality? It is that the latest economic forecasts offer no hope of a return, by 2020, to the strong, sustainable and inclusive growth that the European Union set itself as an objective.
It is also a fact that the current draft budget makes no provision for the financing of the new powers conferred on the Union by the Treaty of Lisbon and fails to fulfil our requests to proceed with the mid-term review of the financial cycle laid down in the 2007-2013 agreement.
Lastly, it is a fact that the draft budget makes no – and I mean no – financial provision for the 2020 strategy.
In short, the Council is adopting programmes without making any financial provision for them. Moreover, when the President of the European Parliament reminds it of its obligations, it takes offence, but when a local, regional or national authority approves projects without financing them, that authority is condemned. Why, I ask you, would something that is unacceptable at local or national level be acceptable at European level?
Is this a way of reconciling our citizens with Europe? I do not think so. I say clearly to the Commission and, above all, to the Council: do not count on my group, do not count on this House voting for programmes that do not have guaranteed funding. My group wants a return to common sense and a balanced agreement to be reached. It must be a comprehensive agreement that relates, at the same time, to the 2011 budget, the 2010 amending budget and its associated letters of amendment, the flexibility procedure and, finally, the guarantees regarding the financing of future policies, which we call the political section.
I would stress that our proposals on this political section do not involve any changes to the current treaties, nor do they anticipate in any way the amount, origin or distribution of future EU funds. I would also stress that reopening the debate on own resources is not a new proposal by Parliament, but a decision taken by the Council itself in May 2006, following the agreement reached in December 2005 under the UK Presidency."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples