Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-05-Speech-3-126"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031105.9.3-126"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, you were right to say that time is short and that we must make an effort so that the projects can start and those concerned can get their funding. That was also my first point of criticism, because the time that has been left us is very, very short. If we are to do our work thoroughly and well, we need time, otherwise things catch up with and overtake us and that is when we fall back on makeshift solutions with which ultimately nobody agrees and which nobody likes. I would like to ask you that in future such matters and such important decisions be given a suitable time frame, because what we have here now is people breathing down our necks and the result is that we have to give way because we want the organisations to get their funding and their subsidies, even though there is still a lot with which we do not entirely agree.
The fact that the legal act is not yet available is regrettable and is already having repercussions. There is already a shortage of funds, for twinning schemes, for example, where the first tranche cannot be paid out; information campaigns, too, in the Member States are having to rein in their resources a great deal. At a time when we are on the verge of enlargement and we need more information than ever, I think such repercussions are definitely out of place. I therefore believe there is an urgent need to offer transitional solutions so that programmes can continue if there are difficulties, so that Europe’s citizens are not hindered in their planned activities and the confidence which is in any case so very difficult to build up is not undermined at the same time.
As regards the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Medica and Sport’s three reports, which are up for discussion, I think they can easily be discussed and dealt with together, but they differ completely in content and we cannot therefore strike a deal on them simultaneously. For example, the intention behind the proposal to harmonise action programmes as regards the proportion of cofinancing, the principle of degressivity and, not least, the alignment of their running time to 2008 is a good one, but there is no way it will work in practice.
I am also against having a uniform cofinancing rate of 20% for all three areas. Many organisations, most especially in education, receive such minimal support that any further reduction would actually disqualify them altogether and it will not be worth picking up a pencil to make an application. A 20% rate for youth organisations is the maximum because lack of sponsorship makes it very difficult for organisations to carry on their activities as it is.
Regarding the principle of degressivity, which is set at 2.5% from the third year, with the money saved being fed specially into new projects for the new Member States, I think that is also a mere drop in the ocean. I am convinced it is right to integrate the youth action programme into the new youth programme from 2007, since that will certainly bring great advantages to young people and youth organisations. The aims of supporting youth organisations that operate on a European scale include promoting international dialogue among young people, getting information on relevant topics to as wide a public as possible and offering informal educational opportunities. EU support for organisations will offer young people not only a chance to cooperate in matters that affect them and their interests, it will offer them everything, the whole broad spectrum of European politics and the related dimension. I believe they should be included in all discussion phases.
So far as the geographical applicability is concerned, I think the principle of the wider Europe must also be applied to youth organisations. I support the involvement of youth organisations from the European Union, the Member States, the EFTA and EEA countries, the Balkan countries and certain countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States. But I do not think that the activities of organisations working with partners outside those countries should in any way be restricted provided they are supported by their own governments and organisations.
In order to take some of the sting out of administrative decisions, the Commission should give applicants the opportunity to correct formal errors within a set period from submitting the application. All organisations that have received funding from the EU budget should also indicate this on their home pages or mention it in their annual reports. That applies for all three programmes, both to give an overview of the organisations’ activities and to make the European added value visible.
Education, youth and culture should be paid greater attention; they should not simply be mentioned or serve as padding for speech making. Europe’s future lies in an open-minded youth, given an opportunity through strengthened educational institutions and organisations to build a Europe of common social prosperity, the foundation of which will be acceptance of cultural diversity and dialogue with art and culture."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples