Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-02-07-Speech-4-129"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020207.6.4-129"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"As long as the structural funds remain unchanged, there will be tension between the regional side and the European side. Viewed from the regional angle, this is about the regions’ own funding to which they are entitled and which they must be able to spend independently and as freely as possible. From the European angle, this is about European money that can only be made available under strict conditions for use in regions and cities and that must be demanded back if deadlines are exceeded or the planned spending plan deviated from. These clashing demands can only be brought into line with each other following much official, preliminary consultation and a great deal of inspection. This means that high expenses and much bureaucracy are involved in spending these funds. It might be preferable for Europe to confine itself to the redistribution of funds that can be freely spent for the benefit of investments in regions suffering from a disadvantage, a crisis or a geographical location that is economically disadvantageous, and keep interference in spending to a minimum, or eliminate it altogether. Such a change would allow European officials to be deployed on other tasks on which work still needs to be done and would put an end to the needless re-circulation of funding from rich Member States back to the same rich Member States. That might result in fewer propaganda hoardings sporting a European flag, but it would be far more effective."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples