Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-10-24-Speech-1-096"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051024.16.1-096"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
We see ourselves as Europeans, in spite of all our differences. This is down to European culture, which encompasses the shared, dynamic heritage formed by our specific characteristics and our linguistic diversity, elements that come together to form a complex tapestry in which the Greco-Latin, Judeo-Christian and Mediterranean-Muslim traditions are all brought to the fore, whilst ensuring that none of those traditions is able to dominate.
Lastly, Mr President, I must refer to a most worrying point, namely the budget. The figures in the Böge report are merely indicative, yet they were taken into consideration. Whereas in his report the amount earmarked for this programme was EUR 566 million, we have earmarked EUR 600 million, because the Böge report itself provided for a reserve fund enabling us to do this. This is a paltry amount! All those working for the European institutions – the Members of the Commission, including its President and Commissioner for Culture, the Members of Parliament, including the chairmen of the parliamentary groups, and countless other Members, and Members of the Council, including practically every Culture Minister – have long been calling for substantially increased funding in this area.
The Union now has 25 Member States, rather than 15, hence the need for the European unit to be increasingly proactive in the area of culture. The Lisbon agenda will be no more than empty words if European cultural policy collapses without achieving its objectives on common cultural heritage and linguistic and cultural diversity within the Member States.
There cannot be a Lisbon agenda unless we find out more about one another, in terms of our range of historical, cultural and linguistic identities. Failure to do this will render us incapable of cooperating properly with one another on our common goals. Such cooperation will only be possible if we pursue cultural policy that is focused on providing a European added value and is equipped with the necessary resources for that to take place.
I therefore call for this report, which I had the honour of drafting, to be adopted. I also propose that we adopt all of the useful contributions made by Members of all political hues in the Committee on Culture.
Culture should be high on the agenda of promoting the European project, with a view to reviving our common heritage, while encouraging diversity, in such a way that a balance can be struck between the centralising and decentralising tendencies. In order words, we must take measures that acknowledge the value of our common heritage and must enable the 400 million-plus citizens of the Union to find out more about each other within their specific cultural and linguistic identities.
It would clearly be wrong to speak of European cultural integration. One of the most fascinating aspects of our civilisation lies precisely in the idea of Europe accepting itself both as a common entity and as an entity formed and characterised by an openness to its fellow human beings and to the world.
Culture 2007-2013 should, first and foremost, be a framework programme, not for integration, but for increased cultural communication between the citizens of Europe, and should be effected on a Europe-wide scale and built on the foundations of its values. Accordingly, European culture policy must always concentrate on providing a European added value. Otherwise, it will cease to have any meaning and will become indistinguishable from national policy on culture. What is more, cooperation is crucial between the European institutions, the Member States, the cultural players and participants from all Member States, as well as their transnational networks. The purpose of this is to make common cultural policy a reality.
The 2007-2013 ‘Culture’ programme is a third generation programme. It takes on board the experience of the previous ones and seeks to adopt the most appropriate solutions on the basis of that experience.
I must say that, personally, I would have preferred it to have been formed along the lines of the first generation – Raphael, Ariane and Kaleidoscope – with the areas of art, literature, the performing arts and cultural heritage properly marked out. Resources are scarce, yet the number of applications for aid continues to grow. In order for policy to be effective, it must be focused on a small number of clear, well-defined objectives, even if that means some projects falling by the wayside. In any event, let us hope that the new system leads to a more proactive contribution to culture.
We have sought to improve upon the Commission’s proposal, by making a number of changes to it, so as to adapt it more effectively to the proposed aims, to frame the cultural dimension more clearly and to place the accent on the importance of our common cultural heritage, without undermining contemporary creativity.
With the greatest respect, Mr Figel, I must say that it does not look good for the Commission to reject explicit reference to an aspect relating to cultural heritage, which is an enormous, living, breathing phenomenon, is manifested both tangibly and intangibly, has been accumulated over the centuries and has helped so much to define us as Europeans. This aspect does not simply boil down to sectoral concerns; what we are talking about is a shared matrix, a common dimension across all sectors, and this is of central importance.
Furthermore, we feel that the provisions on preserving European memorials to the terrible memories of totalitarian violence, both Nazi and Stalinist, would be better placed under the heading of ‘Education for Citizenship’. This idea was formally set down in the minutes of the Committee, as was its acceptance by the Commission."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples