My full intervention here:
“President, Commissioner, I would like to pay tribute to your commitment and your energy, and to ensure you that we will do everything to go along with you and give to Europe a budget enabling it to face globalisation’s challenges. But we commit ourselves until 2027... Do we think that with a budget of 1.08% or 1.30% of the GDP we are going to reach our objectives?
We are today confronted with major challenges triggered by globalisation. Concerning migration issues, how to run out migratory sources? We face challenges in the areas of security, defence, climate protection, cyberattacks prevention, digital economy. Why is there no European giant in the digital sector? We could also mention space policy.
In those conditions, we will not be able to continue asking for more money to member states. Is it not the time, Commissioner, to note that, in some areas, the spending committed at national level do not have the required efficiency anymore and that they will have it again only if they are now committed at the European level?
In those conditions, can we consider that, if we raise the budget to 2% or 3% of the European gross domestic product, it will not be an increase of the European public spending, because we will stop to commit some spending at national level in order to commit them with solidarity at the European level? And in those conditions we will not increase the European public spending, we will have a greater efficiency and you will have the argument demonstrating the European added value.
Yes, Commissioner, we need a Europe that shapes our future, a Europe that protects us, a budget which is coherent with our ambitions and our vision.”