BUDGET OF THE EUROPEAN UNION FOR 2021-2022
-
Well, this is something I didn't expect, to be misunderstood because of a Spanish expression. Councillors, I am very sorry for this misunderstandment, but before criticising a Councillor for translating, not with the best words I must say, an expression which means "doing nothing"; you ought to search for the meaning or maybe consult a person from that country. In fact, thanks to the existance of several webpage that translate this kind of phrases, I would like you all to search for this link in your mobile and then getting to know what it really means if you don't believe me. Still, I am deeply sorry if it was misunderstood and as well as if anybody here was offended, because that wasn't my intention.
Still, I must say it surprised me that some members here accused me of a Code of Conduct breach. Section V, Article I says "I. The behaviour of Councillors shall be characterised by mutual respect, professionalism, understanding others’ perspectives, courtesy and acceptance of responsibility." Now, that we all know what this colloquial expression means, are we going to censor other foreign colloquial expressions basing it on this section? Ladies and gentlemen, there's absolutely no breach of a code when this doesn't say a thing about colloquial expressions. I'm aware about the Code of Conduct range, Cllr. Yahontov; and also that better words can usually be chosen, but I tend not to write my speeches and then read them, but think on them when I'm having the floor. Again, if anybody here felt offended for a expression that basically means "doing nothing" and how it's translated into English, I'm very sorry; but either we ban all the colloquial expressions and put walls to freedom of speech, which by the way ends where respect starts; or we allow them all while they are respectful and we know their meanings before criticising another member. And by the way, I welcome many Councillors back to the Council that hadn't appeared in a few months, it's nice to have you back and I hope you keep attending sessions and giving some importance to this very respectable chamber.
Now, leaving politics aside as what I wanted to say about the management of this Commission has been heard, I would like to address the answers about my remarks to the budget from the Premier Commissioner. Ms. Čikarová, I know you might be aware of what I criticised: I understand many of the rises like on embassies; but for example we aren't giving the award our workers from the European Relief Force deserve. They do a great work when they are deployed, and again, their budget is only risen in 105,41€. That's, Ms. Premier Commissioner, a ridicolous and very outrageous rise for a people that deserve more than 105 Euros. The European Development Agency budget is also, in my opinion, very optimistic if we look at what the costs might be. 600 million Euros is actually a huge amount of money, but it won't be enough when member states can start applying for loans. I will be focusing 2 of my amendments to those affairs.
Now, the budget decrease for the European Council it's based on "we have less Councillors than in the last budget"; which I also understand, please correct me if I'm wrong, as "the Council activity has decreased and so it budget must be cut down". If this was another explanation to the budget cut for the European Council, why isn't the Commission budget cut down when it activity has been none? Of course, if all of this is just part of my thoughts and not the real version or at least the Premier thoughts; then I can start to understand slightly more why the budget is being cut down. But I would like to remember our Premier Commissioner that this budget is expected to last for a year, so we should take into account that more Councillors could join us in the upcoming months.
With that said, I hope to receive some answers and being understood the next time I use some colloquial expressions. Thank you very much.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain -
It is highly unfortunate that you refuse to apologize to the Premier Commissioner for your words, Councillor Tusk, and have instead opted to defend yourself. Everyone here knew what you meant - it was not the meaning of the words that caused our objections, but rather their sheer coarseness. We do not expect to hear such words, regardless of what was meant by them, in an official environment, and especially from such a high-ranking official.
Regardless, let me move on. I think the Premier's defense of her actions has convinced me; however, in light of this, the future initiative allotment should be increased, perhaps to as much as 15 billion. I would like to hear the comments of other Councillors before actually proposing an amendment, however.
Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
Councillor Tilkanas, I have said sorry 3 times, and apologised 4 counting those 3. I know people tend to feel good when the criticise the European Progressive Alliance or it's members, and even when they do things correctly, they are blamed. The European Progresive Alliance has, in fact, been a victim of many criticism capaigns based on false and out-of-context claims, and this is the start of a new one. I hope that many of those who signed the complaint and haven't appeared around here for months for whatever reason, spend more time here, caring about the Europeans, instead of wasting it on a personal revenge against someone or an Eurogroup; the EU would be much better if that happened.
I forgot to submit my amendments in the last speech and I'm submiting them now. I would like to request that each of the variations are taken as several amendments, and not as just one:
Expenses:
European Council: 1,625,000,000€
European Relief Force: 230,335,878.20€
Total Expenses: 32.139.131.633€
Budget Totals:
Total Expenses: 32.139.131.633€
Total Surplus: 61.186.236.409,39€
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain -
Firstly: why should we increase our own funding, especially when we have fewer members? Imagine headlines - amid European crises, Council decides to rise its own pay! It smacks of corruption. Secondly, the European Relief Force's funding last year was perfectly adequate for its repeated deployments; the budget this year is not something made to pay them for what they have done, but rather to allow them to continue to function. Certainly, they should have access to more funds; but I have come to the conclusion that this should be accomplished merely by increasing the future initiative allotment rather than anything else, as that allows for more flexibility.
You also have not apologized for your words; you have merely apologized for potential misinterpretations of your words, and have sought to, in fact, defend them as the right thing to say. Again, everyone here knew what you were trying to say; we were merely shocked and disgusted at the way you chose to say it. This is not a vendetta against the EPA or the EU; it is concern over the fact that such vulgar and innapropriate words were uttered in these most respectable of chambers.
Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
It's not true at all that the Council would rise its pay if the assignation for the institution was amendment, it would still have been cut down from 1,822,925,000€ to 1,625,000,000€. Approximately, 200 million Euros less for the Council, so I don't understand why it would generate a crisis, nor why we should be called corrupt. And we agree the European Relief Force should have more funds, but it's way better to directly get the money in their budget than in the future initiative allotment, which as its own name says, it's reserved money for all kind of legislation. We should also mention that the increase is a few millions, speaking in the terms of the huge amount of money the European Union is handling.
And about my words, once again, my apologies. The way I have said "doing nothing" could have been better, and I'm very sorry and so I apology to everybody in the room. But, as I also said, I never bring my speeches written so it just comes up. I will put all my forces to not repeat it again. About my opinions on the reactions, I'll save them for myself.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain -
Apologies for my misinterpretation of the amendment.
Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
Firstly, I would just like to thank to all that have stood up against the improper remarks in this Council. I can't accept an apology, that is not apologizing for the improper words but for us getting alarmed by them. However I would appreciate if we could move past talking about certain body parts. And I would also appreciate if we could restrain from mentioning each other's private parts on social media, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Thank you.
Councillor Tilkanas, you have in fact interpreted the amendment proposed by the Deputy Speaker quite correctly. The cost per individual Council member would in fact increase with his proposition from the previous budget. In the proposed budget, the expanses for the council have been decreased proportionally to the decrease of Council members and the cost of one individual member of the Council have remained unchanged. The decrease has, of course, nothing to do with activity Mr. Deputy Speaker. The amendment proposed by Mr. Tusk would in fact increase the pay of Council. Which is something I don't see a reason for, as there were no issues with the funding for the Council in the previous fiscal year.
The proposed funding for the European Relief Force has remained largely unchanged from the previous budget, since there were no issues with their funding and I haven't registered a demand for increased funding, and so I haven't proposed a major change to their funding from the previous fiscal year. Of course I am not principally opposed to increase their funding if members of the Council consider it needed, even at the expanse of the money that could have been returned to the member states.
Sofie Čikarová
Premier Commissioner -
I will now propose my amendment, in light of recent statements:
**Future Initiative Allotment (From Legislation, etc):
10 000 000 000€11 000 000 000€As I have stated, many of the agencies and organizations of the Union may require more in the coming months, requiring more preparation than ordinary.
Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
Debate is now over. It is time to vote on amendments. There are SIX amendments, which have been proposed by Councillor Tilkanas and myself, Councillor Tusk. The amendments are thus:
Amendment I - Proposed by Cllr. Tusk
Expenses:
European Council: 1,625,000,000€Amendment II - Proposed by Cllr. Tusk
Expenses:
European Relief Force: 230,335,878.20€Amendment III - Proposed by Cllr. Tusk
Expenses:
Total Expenses: 32.139.131.633€Amendment IV - Proposed by Cllr. Tusk
Budget Totals:
Total Expenses: 32.139.131.633€Amendment V - Proposed by Cllr. Tusk
Budget Totals:
Total Surplus: 61.186.236.409,39€Amendment VI - Proposed by Cllr. Tilkanas
Expenses:
Future Initiative Allotment (From Legislation, etc): 11,000,000,000€
Voting on amendments will commence NOW and will last until 19:30 GMT on October 1st, 2021.
I vote FOR amendments I, II, III, IV and V and AGAINST amendment VI.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain -
I vote FOR Amendment II and Amendment VI. I vote AGAINST all other amendments.
Bp. Karinn Lallana
Councillor for Inquista -
I vote FOR Amendment VI, and AGAINST all other amendments.
Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
The Empire of Inimicus votes FOR Amendment II and AGAINST all other amendments.
Nicholas Benfield
-
On behalf of United Duchies I vote FOR ammendments II and VI and AGAINST all other ammendments
James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillour for United Duchies -
The Kingdom of Montenbourg votes FOR All Amendments.
Emma Granger,
Councillor for Montenbourg. -
On behalf of the Democratic Republic of Czech Slavia, I ABSTAIN on Amendment II and Amendment VI and vote AGAINST all other Amendments.
Václav Kohout
Councillor for Czech Slavia -
Voting on amendments has concluded. With 2 votes FOR and 5 votes AGAINST, Amendment I has been REJECTED. With 5 votes FOR, 1 vote AGAINST and 1 vote ABSTAINING, Amendment II has PASSED. With 2 votes FOR and 5 votes AGAINST, Amendment III has been REJECTED. With 2 votes FOR and 5 votes AGAINST, Amendment IV has been REJECTED. With 2 votes FOR and 5 votes AGAINST, Amendment V has been REJECTED. With 4 votes FOR, 2 AGAINST and 1 ABSTAINING, Amendment VI has PASSED.
The budget has been updated to reflect the passed amendments.
Final voting begins NOW and will last until 20:11 GMT on October 4th, 2021.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain -
On behalf of the Most Blessed State of Inquista, I vote FOR this budget.
Bp. Karinn Lallana
Councillor for Inquista -
On behalf of the Archrepublic of Vayinaod, I vote FOR this budget.
Carita Falk
Archrepublic of Vayinaod -
Gadalland and Aspern votes FOR this budget.
-Edutitalle Dina
Head Councillor -
On behalf of the Kingdom of Spain, I ABSTAIN on the European Budget.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain
The Kingdom of Spain
