Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, any budget is the expression of political choices par excellence. From this point of view, I think there is a singular contradiction between piling on the tasks assigned to the European Union, while subtracting the resources necessary to fulfil these tasks. The iron logic of the budgetary Stability Pact does not go at all well with the ambition for a Europe of greater social justice and greater solidarity. Let me sum up as follows for the benefit of the uninitiated, by which I mean our fellow citizens, in order to make explicit the main themes of the draft budget submitted to us by the Council of Ministers. Agricultural expenditure: a systematic 10% cut of all the credit lines in relation to the Commission’s preliminary draft budget, without even examining the specific requirements, case by case. Structural Funds: appreciable reduction in the regional aid appropriations. Internal policies, that is, excluding research and networks, all policies supporting employment, youth, training, the environment, culture: a reduction of nearly 18% in relation to our current budget. External policies, especially in the area of cooperation with the countries of the South: the chop. Examples have been given already, but let me add: food aid down by 9% in relation to the present, cooperation with Africa down by 12% and aid to NGOs down by 35%. This choice is completely unacceptable in the opinion of my group. The reason put forward to attempt to justify these swinging cuts is the unexpected appearance of new priorities, which are incidentally perfectly legitimate, such as aid for the reconstruction of Kosovo, our contribution to the construction of East Timor now that it has been liberated, our solidarity with the earthquake victims in Turkey and financing of a fisheries agreement with Morocco. This argument is inadmissible, in my opinion. It is not acceptable to rob Peter to pay Paul. While my group is by no means arguing in favour of recklessly increasing Union expenditures, we still think it necessary, if the need arises, as is clearly the case, to utilise the margin for the increase in expenditure which is authorised under the agreements signed between the Member States themselves. Yet, as a percentage of the gross domestic product of the Union, the volume of the Council’s draft budget is less than that of the Commission’s preliminary draft budget, which was already less than that of the Berlin Agreement which in turn was less than the ceiling set by the Edinburgh Agreements. Where is it all going to end? We have to know what we really want to achieve and allocate appropriate resources, within reason. This is why my group is requesting, within the limits envisaged under the agreements signed by the Member States themselves, a review of the Financial Perspective for all the items I have just mentioned. And, Monsieur Bourlanges, since he who can do more can do less, we are at all events supporting the rapporteur’s proposal for the review of the Financial Perspective for external policies. In addition, I would like to draw the attention of my fellow Members to some amendments proposed by my group in favour of a study on the application of the Tobin tax in support of the world cultural heritage classified by UNESCO within the countries of the Union, in favour of a freeze on aid to Turkey, excluding, of course, aid to the earthquake victims, until the Turkish authorities change their attitude to the Kurdish people, on the question of Cyprus and on the subject of human rights in general. Finally, we urgently demand that the appropriations allocated in the 1999 budget to the European Women's Lobby, which unites 1400 women’s organisations and which performs work of a high quality, are renewed in their entirety in the 2000 budget. As you can see, these are common sense proposals on which all progressive Members of Parliament, and even others, can and should agree.

Political group: GUE-NGL