Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-11-21-Speech-3-078-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20121121.4.3-078-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, thank you very much for this exchange of views. I know it is only by working together that we will deliver a good and sustainable budget for the Union.
Indeed we all – Member States and of course this House as well – have the right of veto. But veto is just the right to pull the plug from the bottom of the boat we are all in, with the certainty that the boat will sink. Therefore, let us replace the threat of veto and the vicious circle with a virtuous one and embark on this by definition cathartic exercise, sticking together in adversity and coming out of it stronger and better off and, at the end of the day, bequeathing a better Europe to future generations.
We have taken note of the positions expressed during this debate; we are going to convey them to the President of the European Council and through the Council to our Heads of State and Government.
Far be it for me to challenge or question the intentions of MEPs, albeit diverse and conflicting at times, or for that matter the intentions of this House as a whole. I was particularly heartened about the reminder of the role of the EU budget and the role of Europe in the world and of Heading 4, because indeed we do not live in a glass house.
However, an agreement on the MFF can only be the synthesis of a shared vision and ambition considering the dire economic realities we are facing. Certainly we should not lower the level of ambition in a way which would deprive us of the means to move forward together honouring our values: quality of life, social cohesion, a redefinition of the notion of modernity and what kind of competitiveness we want; what kind of society we want; what kind of community we want.
As regards the antithesis mentioned by my mentor, Mr Kasoulides, real as it is, there might also be differing views on how to best achieve agreed and coordinated, sought-after results. Nobody in the Council questions Erasmus, help for SMEs, culture, education, research and development. Even with the proposed reductions, there is a substantial increase in comparison with the current period.
We do not come with a butcher’s cleaver to cut because we enjoy cutting. It is a difficult and painful situation. Let us credit each other with good intentions. Let us credit each other with being good Europeans even if we disagree on the role, the scope and the ambit of the European Union and what should be done at the European level.
Let us try together – but please in a pragmatic way with respect and dignity – to move the limits of what is possible and the quality of our spending, of our policies, of our actions, of our programmes.
Some tell us that we are a weak Presidency because we have upheld these values. We will not change. We will continue to have the same ethical approach assuming fully our responsibility with modesty yet ambition; trying to bring about a big catalyst of change. However, we do not force or impose. This is our role; we are honest brokers. This is our mission.
Please be conscious that when Member States contributing more than two-thirds of the budget and representing more than half of the EU population are asking for reductions, we cannot just ignore them. What we need is just more persuasion. This is the only way."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples