Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-02-28-Speech-4-031"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020228.2.4-031"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, hand on heart, fellow members of the European institutions: do you really believe that European competition law, specifications for the height of tractor seats or directives liberalising the electricity market make hearts leap at the thought of European integration? Surely we need something else the people in our Member States can identify with. Cultural exchanges and cultural life can bring about a plethora of positive results, far more than a disputed regulation can. The cultural heritage and cultural diversity of Europe should have been mainstreamed in Community policy since the Maastricht Treaty, ever since the word culture appeared in the Treaties. So much for the theory. In practice, the Member States jealously guard their national and regional cultural sovereignty. The Council insists on the principle of unanimity on cultural affairs, tiresome conciliation procedures are the order of the day and low-level agreements and infuriating delays the consequence – witness Culture 2000.
The budget is and always has been derisory. At 0.04% all in, cultural expenditure represents a sliver rather than a slice of the European budget. It is soul-destroying for artists to know that there is a 90% probability of their application being rejected – however convincing their idea – because fewer than 10% of applications stand a chance of being rubberstamped. And it is not much fun for us Members of the European Parliament to keep dashing hopes as we turn down applicants by the dozen.
No one wants to rob the Member States of their authority but a bit more openness would not go amiss. Unfortunately, it is not even to be found in the practical implementation of Culture 2000. As we have already said, crippling bureaucracy and delays with payments, which are ruinous for organisers, make life unnecessarily difficult for applicants, to mention just two of the criticisms. In the final analysis, what we also lack is a consistent material concept which answers the question: exactly what is the purpose of the aid? To stage major events to reach as many people as possible in one go? Or to give as many artists as possible the opportunity to work in other countries? Mainstream culture has a much easier time of it. But the way to people's hearts is to support less established artists, networks and private initiatives. That is what creates European added value.
The European Union is the most powerful economic area in the world. We gladly brag about that with undisguised pride. But the European Union is also a cultural area of immeasurable diversity. We should be making broad strokes, not fiddling about at the edges, and not just with Culture 2000."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples