Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-02-Speech-2-008"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030902.1.2-008"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, may I point out that it is pronounced Duin, as in Duisburg. I know that it can sometimes be problematic, but I will take the liberty of pointing it out at this stage.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to echo the words of thanks voiced by previous speakers to the two rapporteurs. I believe that we have now taken another major step forward in this ongoing debate, thanks in particular to Mr Mastorakis's report. I should like to comment on the two reports together. It will be clear to the Commission too that there are several demands that Parliament repeatedly underlines – including in the report – and I assume that a consensus could be reached here on the following: that we do not want renationalisation; that 75% of GDP is a good yardstick and that 0.45% of GDP is a minimum if we are to be able to implement a viable European structural policy.
I should now like to say something on the outstanding points, which are also mentioned in the reports. Many people believe that a new Objective 2, whatever it looked like, could solve their problems. We have to be more honest and cannot say to each region: you will also get in under Objective 2, once it is restructured in some way. That is why we wish to make various proposals, and these are also reflected in the reports. The first concerns the regions that will suffer from the statistical effect, the current Objective 1 regions. For these, we need to launch a new programme – let us call it a 1b programme – that is generously funded, but above all – this is very important to the regions and we must take it into account – that has a legal framework that is comparable to Article 87, and which will enable them to use the aid to meet their region's specific needs.
The second concerns the disadvantaged regions, which take centre stage in Mr Pomés Ruiz's report. Here we do not need a new Objective 2, but a very special instrument for these regions, which properly takes into account the special problems that we of course wish to acknowledge. We should not try to lump everything together here.
The third proposal is for a real Objective 2 for those areas undergoing structural change. Here I would, however, make a strong plea in favour of ensuring that in this case the Member States are given as much freedom as possible to use the funds as they see fit. This triad is important. It is conveyed clearly in the Mastorakis report as it stands, which is why we will of course be voting in favour of it. A few changes are probably needed to the Pomés Ruiz report to achieve this, and we hope that we will be adopting those today."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples