Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-10-26-Speech-3-097"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051026.13.3-097"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Today, another attempt has been made to misuse funds and rules that exist to solve cross-border problems. Trans-European Networks were intended to compensate for past shortcomings. State borders often appeared to hinder the construction and maintenance of fast, long-distance through connections. Old railway lines and roads were mainly intended for domestic travel. European cooperation could make a useful contribution to connections between two neighbouring countries, or across the territory of a third country between two non-neighbouring countries.
The original cofinancing plan of not more than 10% was intended for that purpose alone. The contributions have now increased to 30% or 50%, and, according to Mr Mauro’s amendments, natural boundaries have been exceeded within one Member State as well. Were these amendments by any chance intended in his country to cover half the cost of a non-earthquake-proof car bridge to Sicily before long? I should have voted against when this proposal was adopted. I object to the EU’s increasing interference in national administrative deliberations and prestige projects. If funds are available for the TENs, these could be better invested in cross-border railway connections, particularly the previously neglected connections between east and west."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples