Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-24-Speech-2-358"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061024.36.2-358"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"We share the concerns and the objectives of the ‘Europe for Citizens’ programme and accordingly voted in favour. The truth of the matter is that this European Union is short of neither ‘Europe for businesses’ nor ‘Europe for the market’. Far from it, in fact. We have had far too little ‘Europe for citizens’, too little support for a European citizenship with an active voice in the major themes on which we are building our shared territory. In this area, decisions lack courage, laws are thin on the ground and support is virtually non-existent. This programme alone will not in itself reverse this situation. We support the programme, but we are also critical of its budgetary weakness. A 60% cut on the original proposal is clearly excessive, but very much in keeping with the restrictive and outdated rule whereby all programmes in the field of education, culture and youth are underfunded. Chronic underfunding is not the result of any scarcity of resources, but of a deliberate policy strategy on the type of Union that the Member States want to construct, which resurfaced when the financial perspective for 2007-2013 was adopted, to the detriment of areas such as culture.
There is no such thing as effective policy without adequate funding. Words and good intentions are all well and good, but the policy must be much more than this.
Mr President, Mr Takkula, we agree with you as regards your preference for transparency in granting funding for projects. This should be based on clear criteria with open application procedures and impartial adjudicators. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. We are pleased to note that we will gradually see an end to the scandal of funding being granted outside the application system to organisations that place themselves above fair competition and are still receiving substantial long-term funding. This damages the Union’s image. The fact that these organisations are often associated with important personalities who made their careers in the European institutions only makes matters worse. I come from a southern European country and I must say I warmly welcome the fresh air blowing in from the north in relation to this issue.
Lastly, as regards the new line of funding on memorials to dictatorships, I should like once again to express our complete opposition to the criteria that have been followed. The exclusion of memorials to dictatorships that for decades oppressed various peoples in the south of Europe shows a lack of respect for the thousands of victims of these dictatorships. Without the victory over the fascist regimes of southern Europe, the borders of the EU would be quite different today, and its territory smaller. The exclusion of these dictatorships, and of the memory of them, sends out the wrong message to the citizens, suggesting, as it does, that there are some dictatorships whose memory should not be forgotten and others that are not so bad or even acceptable. It also sends out the wrong message to the world. A pragmatic attitude to dictatorships is indicative of double standards, and poisons and discredits the EU’s external policy. A criterion based on unambiguously democratic principles would have been better than a mediocre, mean-spirited criterion that was unable to look beyond the scarcity of funding."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples