Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-25-Speech-3-091"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040225.6.3-091"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spokenAs | |
lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, this oral question has at least one thing to be said for it, inasmuch as what was a phantom dossier has now become clearly visible, since the Council has just confirmed that what we have been reading in the press, what we have heard whispers about from the Council, and what, in some cases, certain Commissioners have been saying, does in fact exist. There really is a Quick Start programme, even though Mrs de Palacio had explained to us that it did not exist. Thank you, then, President-in-Office of the Council, for confirming this so clearly here today, and I should also like to thank all those Members who put their names to this oral question.
After all, it is a good method to try to begin with those projects which have been around the longest, thereby avoiding a situation in which, as a result of trying to take on too much, we end up by not achieving very much at all. I therefore welcome the fact that there is, after all, a method for implementing the TEN projects. What is clear, however, is that the real priority list is this one, the Quick Start list, because that is where our meagre funds will be going, and our funds are very meagre compared with the immensity of the task.
I therefore share Mr Jarzembowski’s point of view. I believe that it would be inappropriate for the European Parliament not to be informed about and associated with the implementation of this list. I am not sure whether we should go as far as codecision when it comes to the method for funding and implementing the TEN projects. What I
sure about, however, since it was I, together with a number of other Members, who called for it is that we must have regular information about the implementation of the thirty TEN projects which we shall be voting in favour of. I hope, therefore, that this sitting will at least have been useful in two ways. On the one hand, it has sought to clarify the procedure so that we can see whether or not we are within the codecision framework – and we shall have to have a very clear answer on that subject – and on the other hand, if we are not involved in a codecision procedure, it has at least made provision for an annual report on the implementation of the TEN projects which we have voted in favour of."@en1
|
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"am"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples