Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-06-15-Speech-4-102"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060615.24.4-102"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"When we adopt positions on various issues, we must always reflect on whether such matters really should be decided on at EU level, rather than do as we have done in this case and ponder how the EU is to carry through the research that a particular establishment wants to see take place.
No more money is made available for research just because the Member States send such money via EU authorities. What there is, however, is more bureaucracy and increased costs. Institutional competition between countries with a view to discovering sound solutions leads to quicker progress than does central control at higher levels.
The question that should instead have been posed is that of what the EU can do for research in Europe that the Member States themselves cannot successfully do. In theory, EU involvement may be limited to areas such as research networks, freedom of movement for researchers within the EU and large-scale research in areas such as energy derived from fusion. Those are the kinds of area to which the EU’s research policy should be limited in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.
Thus, we cannot support stem cell research at Community level since it may mean Member States being forced to help fund research that conflicts with national laws in this area. We would, however, point out that we are keen supporters of the laws and rules that apply in Sweden to this type of research.
Because there has manifestly been no thinking in terms of subsidiarity, the June List has voted against the report as a whole."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples