Strasbourg, 18/05/2006 (Agence Europe) - During Wednesday's plenary debate on the financial perspectives 2007-2013 (EUROPE 9194), Alain Lamassoure (EPP/ED, France) interpreted the mind-set of a large number of MEPs, saying that there should be a “yes” to the agreement with Council, not because it is good or as good as possible, but because it is “the only one possible”. Mr Lamassoure again urges for reform on own resources, a reform on which the EP is actively working with national parliaments, he recalls, speaking of the exchanges that were held with them on this theme last week, and which show broad agreement on the diagnosis and on a possible timetable - the hope of an agreement for 2008-2009, but also differences over the scope of the agreement (EUROPE 9188). On one side, according to Mr Lamassoure, there are the “masochists who suffer from the system but who like suffering (…), the moderates, who would be content with limited changes, and the ambitious, open to the most radical reforms”. Two things, however, are clear: - fiscal sovereignty of Member States must be respected and the tax burden on citizens must not be unduly increased. The analysis made by Richard Corbett, British Labour member, is quite positive: - although some credit is lower than initially proposed, the amounts sometimes increase considerably, mainly when it concerns research, and when amounts fall for agriculture, this is really a good thing. It is a fairer, more transparent system, German Social Democrat Jo Leinen said. Markus Ferber (EPP-Ed, Germany) spoke of a “great success”, inviting his colleagues to continue playing their role throughout the procedure, mainly by combating one of the “Union's illnesses - moneyitis”.
The debate nonetheless highlighted the frustration felt by some representatives who took a firm stance against the agreement, while a large number allowed an unenthusiastic “yes” to be drawn out of them. In this agreement, there is good and bad, said Wojciech Roszkowski (Ind/Dem, Poland), and the two are closely linked. For example, he cited the revision foreseen for 2008/2009, which is apparently a good thing, but which, he believes, could be to the detriment of the new Member States. One of the elements of this exercise consists, on the other hand, according to Spanish Socialist Barbara Dührkop, in showing solidarity towards these countries, and revision is essential for adjusting one's aim, if necessary. Austrian Green member Johannes Voggenhuber, like Salvador Garriga Polledo (EPP-ED, Spain), believe that what the budget proposes is not enough to reactivate the Union and its programmes (Ed.: although a majority of the EPP-ED Group voted in favour and the Greens/EFA voted against). The glass is empty, Austrian Social Democrat Herbert Bösch noted bitterly, voting against the interinstitutional agreement, like French Socialist Yannick Vaugrenard, who does not want financial perspectives “on the cheap”. In his view, saying yes to the agreement would be tantamount to accepting a “two-speed enlargement” to the detriment of the Eastern European countries compared to Portugal and Spain in the past. Jeoffrey Titford, of the UK Independence Party, voted against for the usual reasons: - a “no” of principle to a “dinosaur Europe” which is no longer credible, he said. Others expressed their views in a more mitigated way, especially Margarita Starkeviciute (ALDE, Lithuania), who denounced the “uncertainties” of the text, or Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE, France), who announced that she would vote yes with “a heavy heart (…) as small steps are better than no steps at all”. Her compatriot, Françoise Grossetête (EPP-ED), said that there was indeed a “minimum interinstitutional agreement”. She finds it “sad” to have to count on revision to improve a text without ambition. From the same group, Ville Itala of Finland is more positive, despite disappointment over the amounts. Jean-Marie Beaupuy (ALDE, France), who recalls that structural funds “have changed everyday life” in Ireland, Portugal and Spain, invites the Council to declare that, if the sums intended for the new Member States are not used, then they will not be redistributed throughout the Member States but reallocated to these same countries.