Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-04-Speech-2-322"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060404.24.2-322"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Let us begin with the name of the programme: ‘Citizens for Europe’ or ‘Europe for citizens’? The difference is not the result of an oversight by the Commission. It is the result of the prevailing culture in the European institutions. There will not be new citizens for Europe while the Europe of the institutions continues, with its policies, to exacerbate the social fissures and the identity problems. No programme for citizenship can resolve this divorce. Yet if the programme, right from the very name, is indicative of this primary urge, then that cannot be a good thing.
I therefore welcome the change of name, although I should like to see the consistency that is currently lacking. I should therefore like to highlight three aspects: Given the scarcity of resources there are two options open. Either the money is concentrated on few, highly conspicuous actions or it is distributed among projects promoting European citizenship. The rapporteur has opted for compromise, while seeking to raise the stock of the second of those options. I would have gone much further. I have nothing against major events, but I am totally opposed to lying.
The greatest virtue of this programme is that it can be carried out by the associative networks, which, on the ground, foster citizenship. Any deviation from this option would distort the very idea of citizenship. Consequently, the idea of earmarking a substantial sum of money for support for six, now eight, institutions, without any kind of contest, is similarly unsustainable. The normal procedure in any civilised society is to select projects by means of transparent contests. At the other end of the scale is the law of lobbies, arrangements and favours. In this particular case, eleventh-hour agreements were reached in order to accommodate two more organisations. I am not judging their actual merits, but I am criticising the complete lack of merit in this method of awarding grants. The exact opposite would be a lesson in Europe citizenship, whereby contests are run and, hopefully, the contestants are rewarded impartially on their merits.
My final question relates to the problem of memory. With the entry of the new countries from the East, it is perfectly understandable that the idea of associating the memory of the victims of Stalinism with the victims of the holocaust has emerged. That is fair enough, but does not tell the whole story. What is missing is something to honour the memory of the victims of fascism in southern Europe. Our view of citizenship must be that of respect for the pain of the victims, their families and their descendents. There cannot be any other criteria. In Portugal there is a citizens’ movement campaigning against turning the police headquarters of the old regime into luxury flats, rather than a museum. Each person brings his or her memories to Europe. With those memories, all of those memories, memory itself can be a component in citizenship. Fascism was an example of totalitarianism. It was also European."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples