Mr President, I should like to extend my warm thanks to President Prodi for this early presentation of the proposal on the financial perspectives. It gives us, as Parliament, as well as the national governments, plenty of opportunity for listing our priorities for the next few years. After all, the budget is, logically, the financial translation of the policy that we want – nothing more, nothing less. In this respect, I should really like to congratulate the Commission. It is trying, in an honest and courageous manner, to point out the cost of the content of the plans made by the European Heads of Government and also of the Commission itself over the past few years. In my opinion, the Commission is, in this sense, much more honest than the six net contributors who, last December, said that they would pay not one cent more than they are doing now. In that sense, I share in the critical attitude of my fellow MEPs. One per cent and not one cent more, irrespective of enlargement, irrespective of the need for Europe to play a more prominent role in the world, irrespective of plans for European border control and irrespective of the promise to turn Europe into the world's most dynamic knowledge economy: plans of this kind are always announced with much pomp and circumstance, but at the end of the day, Member States refuse to accept the implications. More tasks for the European Union, certainly a larger European Union, will also require more money. I would like to urge you to put your money where your plans are. Current expenditure, too, could also, of course, be held up to the light. Cutbacks could definitely be made there, and my group would be willing to talk about this. The problem, though, is that those very six countries that are fixated on this one per cent also refuse to discuss further reforms with regard to the European budget's biggest debit item, namely agricultural policy. It is a policy that is still massively rewarding farmers and is detrimental to animals and the environment. The net contributors refuse to talk about this for reasons that are beyond me. It is time we started talking not only about the amount involved or about what Mr Prodi said about the roof of the house, but also about a really useful way of spending the citizens' tax money. In this respect, I have numerous doubts regarding the Commission's proposal. It wants to set aside a great deal of money under the heading of sustainable development, which is fine – it touches my green heart. However, what exactly is so sustainable about the proposals you have formulated? The Commission has developed a whole strategy to stimulate research, but why has this not been done for the environment? Why have all the plans to make agriculture greener by stimulating rural development at the expense of intensive agricultural production been abandoned? Why is there not more funding for rural development? The European Union is also very ambitious when it comes to foreign policy. The ties with the new neighbouring countries must be strengthened and Europe must play an important role globally. My group welcomes this. This role also requires an idea about how, for example, future international crises should be paid for, which is what is currently lacking. Mr Wynn also made the point that, if there is no flexibility in the European budget, then there is the risk that the bill will always be at the expense of other policy measures. Accordingly, the bill will, for example, eventually have to be paid by our new neighbours, while we are, in fact, trying to strengthen those ties. More flexibility also with regard to foreign policy is really something that is yet to be incorporated into the Commission’s plans. I look forward to hearing more about that.

Political group: Verts-ALE