Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-12-14-Speech-2-482"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101214.36.2-482"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted that the Council and Parliament have been able to reach an agreement on the budget for 2011 in these difficult times. The budget is a good compromise inasmuch as we have been able to maintain a low rate of increase but have nevertheless found reasonable resources for our priority areas. I would like to say a big thank you to our rapporteurs, Mrs Jędrzejewska and Mrs Trüpel, and to the Belgian Presidency, which has made a very constructive contribution.
What concerns me is the long perspectives, because, in the long term, it will be unreasonable if the Member States assign new tasks to the EU but cannot agree on how they should be financed. That will be a major problem in 2012 and 2013 and, of course, as we prepare for the forthcoming financial framework, because it is now clear that a minority of richer net contributor countries, some of which have eurosceptic governments, want to slim down the EU budget at any price, regardless of the consequences. That is an unreasonable position, particularly as they are pushing hard themselves for increased expenditure in certain areas, the IT project for example, and are not able to point to where the savings should be made either. Should we cut back on agricultural aid? Should we rein in the Structural Funds? Some people want this, but the majority says ‘no’.
The problems we are facing in relation to the future are actually internal political problems within the Council and between Member States with different attitudes towards the EU and its budget in the future. The issue that is most controversial is the question of the flexibility mechanisms of the future. For us Social Democrats, there are two issues here.
Firstly, it is a matter of principle that we should uphold an interinstitutional agreement that we have had since 1999 and that has worked extremely well. No parliament in the world would accept a reduction in influence, particularly if there were no compelling practical reasons for it. The Council has not been able to present any practical reasons for a reduction in flexibility. The Treaty of Lisbon does not preclude a new agreement with the same content as the current one; rather, it is a question of the political will of the Member States.
Secondly, when the margins diminish at the end of the budget period and, at the same time, new tasks are added, the need for flexibility will also increase. This was pointed out by the Commission in its assessment of the current framework. Despite the fact that all arguments speak in favour of increased flexibility and that it should be easier to apply flexibility, the Council has gone in the opposite direction. That is unacceptable. We know now that there are Member States that see the current dispute about reduced flexibility as preparation for the big battle, resulting in a drastic slashing of the EU budget. If this turns out to be the Council’s line for the future, I am afraid that we will be facing a more permanent budgetary crisis, because we will not accept that."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples