Mr President, Commissioner, the EU’s draft budget for next year has remained in the shadow of certain major events. These also nevertheless have an impact on the EU budget. The first that comes to mind is America’s attack on Iraq, which was illegal when viewed in terms of international law, as it was carried out without a mandate from the UN. The EU pledged EUR 200 million at the Madrid Donors’ Conference to help the United States of America in the post-war reconstruction work in Iraq. In that way, and using money that belongs to all of us, certain large Member States, which did not take part in the oil war, wish to normalise their bilateral relations with the United States. If a Member State wants to give money to Iraq, this money should come from that country itself. That would have been the case if the flexibility instrument, as it is called, had been activated and EU expenditure had been increased by a corresponding amount. It would not have meant abandoning financial discipline because the grand total in the EU’s budget for next year is the lowest for almost 20 years in terms of GDP. That means the EU is not sworn to the same kind of Keynesian policy on debt as Germany and France, which do not make the same sorts of demands on themselves with regard to discipline under the Stability and Growth Pact as those made on others. The way things work now is that the flexibility instrument is just partially activated and some of the assistance money for Iraq is being taken from other budget lines. In that respect the reconstruction of Iraq is being paid for by those beneficiaries that are being deprived of corresponding amounts of cash. Our group cannot support the fact that the destruction caused by America’s war in poor but oil-rich Iraq is being paid for by other poor people: the poor in Asia, Latin America and the Mediterranean countries. The EU constitution was not adopted last weekend in Brussels. That will have no real impact on next year’s budget, but it might have a huge impact on future budgets when talks begin on the financial frameworks for the period 2007-2013. It should be noted how Germany’s and France’s political elite are lumping together continued negotiations on the Constitution and talks on the financial framework. It would seem that this is a threat to those EU candidate countries which insist on their constitutional voting rights and which are net beneficiaries of EU budgetary funds. It is clear that, under the Treaty of Nice, Spain and Poland have too great a voice in the EU, but the EU budget should not be used for political pressure in respect of these countries. If, however, countries are to be treated in this way, let the same be done with regard to all countries, using the same criteria. With reference to the budget we should put pressure on the United Kingdom, whose net contribution we the citizens of the other countries pay two thirds of. There is no sustainable basis for such discounts on contributions. In exactly the same way as we wish to get Spain and Poland to implement the will of others, Great Britain too should be made to pay its share of EU costs on the same basis as that which obtains with others. As for Parliament’s own budget, our group takes a critical view of the proposals for Parliament’s funds to be used to aid political parties at European level, which is to say the parties of parties. Financial support for them will mean weakened national parliamentary democracy and a transfer of power to supranational level. I wish to thank the budget rapporteur and the various group coordinators for their excellent levels of cooperation, although I did put forward some points of view that differ from the general approach.

Political group: GUE-NGL