Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-19-Speech-3-084"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010919.7.3-084"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, I too will take up your suggestion that this issue should be discussed without taboos. I do not believe that there is actually anybody in this House who is opposed to a cohesion policy. The question we must ask ourselves is whether a cohesion policy would not be better conducted without a Cohesion Fund.
There are two problems, the first being that, if the accessions were to take place, then, logically, all the acceding States, being the poorest countries and States, would have to join the Cohesion Fund. You cannot say that there is a regional policy for all, a Cohesion Fund for four countries and all the rest can fit in somewhere else! No, so if the Cohesion Fund were to be maintained, it would have to apply to all the acceding countries. It is my personal view, however, that cohesion policy can be carried on better through the medium of general regional and structural policy and without a Cohesion Fund, as the Cohesion Fund seems to me to suffer from the drawback that it turns its attention to States rather than to regions. It is not the States that we want to support, however, but disadvantaged regions. It is for this reason, Commissioner, that I believe this issue should again be considered very carefully.
I believe, secondly, that we too should, as you have always said, distinguish between substantial reforms and the question of how much money we want to end up spending on them. We must, in my view, come to a quick decision about the substance, as the acceding States have a right to be told before 2002/2003 what the cohesion policy situation is going to be if they are Members by then.
Commissioner, I am not sure that I understood you right: I find your model good in itself. You are saying that there are standard criteria for all regions – one or two, shall we say – then there is phasing out for the regions that used to be supported but no longer can be because of the new criteria or simply because there is no more money. The question now arises: by what criteria should support actually be given in future? I myself would be prepared to talk in terms of one or two, or even three, criteria. I have, though, the slight suspicion – which you hinted at earlier – that there will subsequently be ten. So one takes a look to see what criterion fits the region. Oh look, there are a few mountains, so this is a mountain region. And this place has island status, so we shall call it an island region!
I think it better to take any old percentage – GDP plus, perhaps, the unemployment situation, for example. If one takes that a step further and says that the balance of the sexes or the standard of education of men and women are to be counted as general criteria, then – if I may say so – things get a bit jumbled. So please let us carry on our discussions, as you said you would. We are on your side and look forward to continuing the debate with you."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples