European Council: - MEPS statements ahead of the conclusions EPRef90201 // European Parliament , Brussels, European Council //

Type: News   Reference: 90201   Duration: 00:05:34  Lieu: Brussels, Belgium - EC
End production: 08/02/2013   First transmission: 08/02/2013

Only the original language version is authentic and it prevails in the event of its differing from the translated versions.
PDF version

00:00:00 Title 00:00:05
00:00:05 Exterior view of the European Council 00:00:14
00:00:19 SOUNDBITE (English) Guy VERHOFSTADT (ALDE, BE) I think is copy /paste of the last MFF , there are no big differences of the one of 7 years ago. I think that it’s very difficult for the Parliament to accept this proposal. The reasons are very simple: first of all they create a deficit, a deficit of more than 50 billion euro. That is unacceptable for the Parliament. You can not say that one side to the member states, that you have to solve out the problems of your public finances and on the other hands creating a deficit on the length of Europe. Secondly is they are cutting mostly on growth related expenditures : innovation, infrastructure, connecting Europe The third element is that there is no long a place I this proposal for own resources . That was one of the big requests of the EP., We want a system of different financing of the budget by the citizens . We have still an old style system based on national contributions 00:01:04
00:01:23 SOUNDBITE (English) Guy VERHOFSTADT (ALDE, BE) let’s be honest, what we are doing , we are fixing a financial framework for 7 years. In 7 years the world is changing completely. Even the Soviet Union didn’t had a planification of 7 years. Their plannification was on 5 years only. So we are making a system on 7 years that is really blocking a number of growth related policies in the EU. Let’s be very clear on that. Is not the level of the expenditure, we accept fully that there is z lower level of expenditures than in the previous MFF. But what hapends is that nothing change in the CAP, nothing change in the cohesion policy , and where they are cutting ? They are cutting in innovation , research and mainly in infrastructure, energy , transport and Internet. 00:00:48
00:02:11 SOUNDBITE (English) Guy VERHOFSTADT (ALDE, BE) On top of that there is an additional deficit of 52 billion of euro. What has been done is very clear: you give an amount to cohesions founds, that the 960, and than you create an amount of payments as 908 as the net contributor countries are asking. I don’t know how you can call that. It is a budgetary default? There are two stories on one MFF ? A story that can be belt by the net contributors saying that well, we only by 908. And an other story for the cohesion countries, non, no you will receive 960. How do you call that? 00:00:39
00:02:50 Cutaway press area 00:00:03
00:02:53 SOUNDBITE (English) Rebecca HARMS (GREENS/EFA, DE) My feelings are negative for what they could achieved, and also about the whole process. I think this Summit, and the final proposals show that the Heads of States of the EU do not really back their big common targets as agreed in the EU 2020 strategy. There is no common signal, that he ads of States understands that putting their money together is the best fundamental , the best innovative and sustainable development of the EU 00:00:44
00:03:37 SOUNDBITE (English) Rebecca HARMS (GREENS/EFA, DE) "I would agree to say that at this Council Europe is not able to tackle the challenges for the future. We have this financial crisis, in our backs. We have a global crisis of the economy, we have the climate crises, we have even growing poverty in Europe, and they are going for organising economies in such a way that I so not see this a s a strong and unified signal”. 00:00:35
00:04:12 Cutaway 00:00:04
00:04:16 SOUNDBITE (English) Hannes SWOBODA (S&D, AT) “I don’t think It’s a good compromise. Nor for the amount of money , nor for the elements which are very important for Europe. This is very important for our decision in the EP, like growth, innovation, employment , these are sectors were he the allocated money are not sufficient. Therefore will not be supported by the EP”. 00:00:28
00:04:44 SOUNDBITE (English) Hannes SWOBODA (S&D, AT) We will carefully study it. If its an offer to negotiate about it, than of course we will taken and negotiate, if is just take it or leave it, than maybe we will leave it as we do not agree. 00:00:16
00:05:00 SOUNBITE (English) Martin CALLANAN (ECR, UK) I think its very positive. Finally there are reductions in the European budget that many of us wanted to see, we want to be leaner and fitter while there is austerity across Europe, I think it will be rejected by the EP, while my group will certainly supported it. The problem is that the Parliament is going to do so by secret balance, so if we look the parliament will be out of touch and unaccountable. In general form the point of view of the European tax payers budget I think it is positive. 00:00:34
00:05:34 END 00:00:00
Audiovisual Services
European Commission
Conditions of use
© European Union, 2015