Mr President, Mrs Haug, first I would like to offer my thanks. Examining your report was a pleasure both for political and intellectual reasons. I firmly believe that the report describes what is deemed to be politically feasible, but I think that in view of the challenges that lie before us, it is our responsibility to draw up fundamental reforms aimed not at what is deemed to be politically feasible but rather at what is considered to be politically necessary. If one wants to change a system then one must establish clearly in one’s own mind what the disadvantages of the current system are, and I believe that these can be summed up under the following four main headings. Firstly, the existing EU own resources system has a very rigid framework. The sources of revenue are limited in number, some are on the wane and additional expenditure can only ever be financed if expenditure elsewhere is cut to pay for this. However, European integration has now reached such proportions that we have simply reached the limit of our capacity where this framework is concerned. This means that tasks such as enlargement of the Union, upholding human rights worldwide, and creating basic conditions for combating severe unemployment can no longer be tackled using this framework. Secondly, if we want to be effective in our discussions on reform in this Parliament then ultimately, we as a Parliament must also be given the opportunity to have our say on all the aspects of the process. In this respect, the powers of the European Parliament in budgetary matters do not go nearly far enough. Thirdly, the existing structures for budgetary decision making are such that it is extraordinarily difficult for fundamental reform to be carried out. It stands to reason that the Member States will not exhaust the established ceilings when they are under pressure at home to have to overhaul their budgets and maintain the stability criteria. Fourthly, discussion about a fair and balanced structure is justified on the one hand but also absurd on the other. Absurd because the Member States interpret the concept of fairness in such a way that, in the final analysis, they want to get out of the European Union’s budget that which they put in. That being the case, I for one would be only too happy to spare us the detour via the European Union. Fairness within the European Union can only mean one thing, namely that the original objectives of economic development, prosperity, and the balancing out of developmental differences constitute the criteria by which fairness is measured. Ultimately, every budget represents the financial implementation of political strategies. The European Union has undertaken to do a great deal in the course of the next few years. If, in so doing, we are only ever going to try and reduce expenditure, then it will simply not be possible to do justice to our political needs. And if, in addition, rebates, corrections to contributions and so on are to be introduced, then it is only fair to say that any enterprise carrying on in this way would go bankrupt. This means that we must now concentrate our minds on how we can improve our revenue. Europe needs a financial instrument that, aside from the funds arising from gross domestic product, is independent of the particularist interests of the Member States. In other words, we need to raise our own taxes. The first report in March cited a whole range of positive suggestions to this effect, i.e. an eco-tax, a CO2-tax, taxation on the creaming-off of short-term speculative gains, ECB profits. This is the path we must go down if the European Parliament and European Union are to have sufficient own resources at their disposal in the future.

Political group: GUE-NGL