Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-05-21-Speech-1-115"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2007-05-21"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE+) (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"es"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20070521.17.1-115"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2007-05-21-Speech-1-1162
lpv:speaker	lp:Cristina Gutiérrez-cortines2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Partido Popular (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Temporary Committee on Climate Change (2007-05-10--2009-02-04)3 substitute; Committee of Inquiry into the crisis of the Equitable Life Assurance Society (2006-02-16--2007-06-19)3 member; PETI (2007-02-12--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation for relations with Israel (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3 substitute; CONT (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 substitute; ITRE (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; EPP-ED (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; ENVI (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	". Madam President, the LIFE programme procedure, particularly during the final stage of the conciliation procedure, demonstrates the extent to which we are seeing a series of contradictions in Europe and how necessary Parliament still is as direct representative of the citizens. The LIFE project has always been a reference project: many NGOs, many professionals, many municipalities, have learnt what European policy is and have learnt to compete and wish to be involved in environmental policy thanks to the LIFE programme. Any people, however small it may be, is proud to obtain a LIFE project, and the same is true of the consultancies, of the officials who work on these projects and of society itself. Nevertheless, with the contradiction we are seeing now, when, on the one hand, we are ‘intergovernmental’ and, on the other, we want a European Constitution, at the end of the first reading it had been decided that the funds would be managed by governments with national agencies. Parliament was opposed because it believed that, if something is working perfectly — as in the case of LIFE — there is no need to change it. If we already have European added value, and if an image of excellence and quality has been created, why not keep it? Following a long battle, therefore, we have achieved a situation in which the money is partly allocated to the countries, but we have maintained the situation — and we have managed to persuade the Commission and subsequently the Council to agree to this proposal — in which all projects have a right to be heard and assessed by the Commission, although firstly there will be a filter of countries. I want this message to be recorded clearly in the Minutes: they all have the right to be assessed by the Commission. Finally, ‘transnational projects’ mean that, for the first time, the rivers, the water that passes from one country to another, the birds and the air itself, have been provided with an arena for work at international level."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph