Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-02-24-Speech-4-015"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050224.3.4-015"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for being present at this important debate today. If you want to double funding – and many millions of Europeans would be in favour of doing so, if only they knew anything about it, and indeed I am in favour of it, although I only know a little about it – what investments do you actually want to boost by doing so? Experience has shown that 80% of funding from the Fifth and Sixth Framework Programmes has gone to the large corporations, and only 20% to those that could be termed SMEs or that are of an even smaller size.
I believe that the main reason for this is that lobbyists – in particular those acting on behalf of the large corporations – have an above-average amount of influence. They have long since taken a good look around and asked where they can get even more money if funding is to be doubled. These people are very good at their jobs. The second most important reason, however, lies within the Commission itself. Many of the measures you take – and having been a member of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy for many years, I can say that this has always been the case – demonstrate that you still follow the same old motto as the World Bank: ‘big is beautiful’. It is an unfortunate fact that the Commission is making the same mistake that the World Bank made, by constantly funding oversized projects all over the world. The new and enlarged Commission has a real chance of preventing such a mistake and moving away from the 80:20 ratio that favours large businesses. This would be a sure-fire way of creating jobs, and it would mean that progress was made with all aspects of the European dream.
The second question, of course, is which areas really receive investment. I should like to warn you against pretending to Europeans that military armament in the field of research can result in any kind of positive progress, and against making the same mistakes that history is full of. What we are seeing is a new armament by stealth in the EU, and I can only issue the most fervent of warnings against it.
Less dramatic, but equally important, is the nuclear issue. It is absolutely crucial, Commissioner, that if you wish to double funding you must make it quite clear what is actually going where. Transparency is needed so that people know exactly where funding is intended to go, and so that action is not taken behind closed doors. When it comes to informing the public about how funds are used, the European Union will have to decide whether it wishes to move towards propaganda – made what it is by Josef Goebbels, himself the subject of much debate at present – or towards information, with the pioneer of this approach being Jean-Jacques Rousseau. For Europe's sake, I would ask that you move towards informing citizens about funding.
As a final point, I believe that 1% of GDP from Member States will be more than enough for you to manage with. There are a great many ways in which money could be saved in the EU. This House alone has EUR 50 million to spend this year, and has no idea what it should do with it all. In this instance less would mean more, and doubling is in no way incompatible with a maximum of 1%, which is what many countries want."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples