Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-02-28-Speech-4-025"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020228.2.4-025"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the procedure we are dealing with, the control of a programme throughout its execution, is normal in any Parliament. For this reason, I think that Mr Graça Moura’s report is very appropriate. I will say straight away that it deserves the approval of the Socialist Group.
After the conciliation procedure, which has been mentioned previously, I expressed my annoyance with the Council given its intransigence in relation to accepting the financing we requested. This means that a programme that directly affects what we call the heart of Europe and which replaces other programmes that in the last few years have been most enthusiastically received by the most dynamic and youngest citizens of the European Union, has been allocated little more than EUR 33 million per year, an amount so small within the already modest Community budget that it disappoints those of us who see the European Union as something more than solely a vehicle for agricultural and structural spending.
On this basis, we should remember two circumstances: the first is that the Culture 2000 programme exists alongside other resolutions from this Parliament which should produce guidelines for its implementation. I would cite as a particular example the Ruffolo report in which, amongst other things, the Commission is urged to set up a European observatory to monitor cultural cooperation or a three-year cultural cooperation plan.
The Commission should therefore adopt a dynamic approach to Culture 2000, incorporating Parliament’s guidelines year after year.
My second observation: the years remaining in this programme will coincide almost precisely with a working period, initiated at the Nice Council, which we have come to call a ‘constituent’ period. Whether there is a Constitution at the end of this or not, it is clear that the desire to increase the links between European communities and to awaken in each citizen a feeling of belonging to the Community cultural space is amongst the main objectives of the Convention.
Is there a sufficient constituent basis amongst European communities? Is there any cultural identity between them? Many of us think that the constituent basis should be European culture, following Bruckmanns’s idea, that is to say, a common behaviour, a similar attitude to life, shared ideals, common artistic and cultural patrimony, and so on.
Therefore, the political centre of gravity at this time should be more than just currency, more than the CFSP, even, but the linking of citizens to the Community idea and the search for and protection of a European culture. EUR 33 million is a very paltry sum to finance the only European cultural programme to be implemented during this period, but we can console ourselves, Mr President, with the thought that the conclusions of this report will contribute to the improvement of its functioning."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples