Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-02-Speech-2-028"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-09-02"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Cohesion policy2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030902.1.2-028"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-09-02-Speech-2-0292
lpv:speaker	lp:Margie Sudre2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (2002-02-06--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Union pour un Mouvement Populaire (2002-12-02--2004-07-19)3 substitute; PECH (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (2002-03-08--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Delegation for relations with the Mashreq countries and the Gulf (2002-07-04--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, in the context of the debate on the future of regional policy, there is a very wide consensus that priority for the least developed regions should be maintained. Concentrating resources on the Objective 1 regions should, therefore, constitute one of the key pillars of cohesion policy for the period 2007–2013, as is the case now. This would be in line with the principles of solidarity and redistribution. The accession of the candidate countries to the European Union will, in statistical terms, reduce the average GDP of the European Union. Accordingly, the Commission’s progress report states that 18 regions should lose Objective 1 status. They would nevertheless benefit from the support provided under the phasing out mechanism. The French overseas departments will not be affected. They will continue to be classed as Objective 1 in 2007, insofar as their per capita GDP will remain well below 75% of the new European Union average. Furthermore, it would be appropriate to foster equality between regions by taking account of the permanent difficulties affecting islands, mountain regions and regions with low population density. Community intervention of this kind would be counterbalanced by a range of territorial criteria. The latter would be used to define priorities and to determine the extent of the means to be allocated. Nevertheless, I feel it is useful to bear in mind that the concept of ultra-peripheral regions must never be confused with that of peripheral regions, islands or structurally disadvantaged regions, regardless of any relationship of solidarity between all these regions. This is because the special legal status of the ultra-peripheral regions is due to their very remoteness from the continent of Europe. The contribution of other European Union policies is the weakest element of the current progress report. In particular, this concerns the system of governance to be implemented so as to ensure that cohesion policy produces the best possible results in the regions concerned. I have in mind agriculture, rural development, transport, innovation, education and training. I am also thinking of competition policy in the context of state aids to regions and tax concessions. I would, however, like to conclude on two encouraging points. Firstly, there is consensus on the need for real improvements to the financial systems and administrative procedures of the Structural Funds. Lastly, I am encouraged that the suggestion that regional policy should be renationalised has lost support. Had it not, it would most certainly have brought European integration to a grinding halt."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph