Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-27-Speech-2-140"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050927.18.2-140"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, implementation of cohesion policy stems directly from the provisions of the Treaty establishing the European Communities. It is stated therein that as a Community we shall strive to reduce disparities in the level of development of individual regions and the degree of underdevelopment in less privileged areas. This also applies to rural and remote areas. It is therefore entirely appropriate for us to consider this very important issue, and I should like to thank the rapporteur for his work.
Cohesion policy involves more than implementation of the provisions of a treaty. It is about long-term thinking and strategic action. It is also an expression of solidarity within the Union. Clearly, when considering territorial cohesion we should not adopt a simplistic approach, along the lines that everyone is entitled to everything in equal measure. We are all aware that we should be striving to achieve equality between citizens, which is quite another matter.
The existing differences between Member States and their regions mean that the Union’s cohesion policy must adopt a variety of approaches. The policy must be ongoing in nature, and have commonly agreed aims and appropriate limits in terms of time periods and areas covered. I would also like to emphasise most strongly that it must have suitable financial resources at its disposal if it is not to be meaningless. In this connection, the difficulties experienced in reaching agreement on the 2007-2013 Financial Perspective give reason for concern. The delays and the real threat of a delay to the Union’s budget could have very serious consequences.
In my view, it would be advisable to return to sound source material that is politically neutral in nature. I have in mind the Europa 2000 Plus study referred to by the rapporteur, though it does of course need updating.
The priorities set in the strategic guidelines published by the Commission in July are due to be endorsed by Parliament and the Council. They should then serve as a basis for genuinely cohesive preparation by the Member States of documents aimed at the future, namely the National Strategic Reference Frameworks. In general, I feel that the priorities laid down in the Commission’s document are sensible.
The urban aspect is worthy of mention. Mr Beaupuy referred to it just now, in connection with the role played by metropolitan centres. Other important factors are entrepreneurship and the knowledge-based economy. I would also like to say that genuine coordination of work related to the various Union documents is essential. We need more than lip service to the idea.
The proposal concerning the relevance of potential accelerated work on the White Paper on territorial cohesion should be considered seriously. It does rather seem as if little account has been taken of the actual situation in the new Member States in the work undertaken to date.
According to the latest figures published concerning Union expenditure over the last year, two countries of the old Fifteen, namely Greece and Portugal, head the list of net beneficiaries with reference to GDP. The new countries lag far behind. I should add that in term of absolute sums Spain comes top. It is not my intention to criticise anyone in any way whatsoever, but simply to dispel the myth that enormous amounts of money are being handed out to the new Member States.
Mr President, the Union cannot look to the future with optimism if it lacks a properly run cohesion policy. I would remind the House that there can be no European cohesion without European solidarity."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples