Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-12-14-Speech-2-208"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041214.13.2-208"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the European Union’s new financial framework is probably the biggest issue that Parliament has to resolve this term. It is not just the volume of EU funding that is at issue, but what future action is to consist of in general. The first serious disagreement among the Member States concerns the extent of financing. The Commission’s proposal is based on the payment appropriations, which on average would amount to 1.14% of GDP. The proposal by six countries for a ceiling on expenditure of 1% is a stringent one. It does not even reflect the extent of next year’s budget, although the transition phase for the new Member States is only just starting. A call has now been made for joint liability. Will it end when it is a matter of money?
Another problem is the call for a rebate on contributions by the largest net contributors, known as the ‘generalised correction mechanism’. That does not seem fair, as these same Member States also benefit most from the single market.
The Commission’s proposal puts great emphasis on improving employment and competitiveness. In my opinion, that is absolutely the right focus. There have already been enough resolutions. Industry and enterprise cannot succeed if there is no serious research and development work. On the other hand, research is so expensive that no Member State on its own can compete, for example, with the United States of America or Japan. For that reason, European cooperation is needed. We already have examples of this in the fields of space technology and particle research.
The creation of new research programmes must be based on the premise that they will focus on projects that call for Europe-wide cooperation. They must not be allowed to become bureaucratic Structural Funds programmes, the like of which we have now. There must also be more substantial production of training courses in connection with programmes of research. It is very important that we should agree on the future financial framework next year. Then we would avoid the sort of mess we saw at the start of the Agenda 2000 programme, which was delayed, resulting in serious delays in the drafting of several programmes."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples