Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 103kWORD 16k
17 October 2018
E-005309-18
Question for written answer E-005309-18
to the Commission
Rule 130
André Elissen (ENF)

 Subject:  Disgraceful 2019 EU general budget
 Answer in writing 
The Council recently adopted its position on the draft budget of the European Union for the financial year 2019. In it the Council gave short shrift to the Commission’s proposed increases in comparison with the 2018 budget, but made no serious cuts. In the light of the assumptions on which the budget was based, can the Commission answer the following questions:
1. Could it explain why the budget ‘must not increase by less than 2% compared to the 2018 budget’? Is this not a licence to waste even more money?
2. In view of the limited mandate of the European Union and the departure of the United Kingdom, does it see any ways to radically reduce the generous budget of the EU? Is it, for instance, considering substantial cuts to the internal organisation, generous remuneration, the senseless junketing and the trekking to and fro between Brussels and Strasbourg?
3. Subsidies such as those granted under the common agricultural policy cost European tax-payers a lot of money, but their value and necessity have by no means been proven. In addition, the administrative costs involved are always high. Does the Commission therefore agree that the throwing around of subsidies should be limited to a minimum?
Original language of question: NL 
Last updated: 12 November 2018Legal notice