Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-11-11-Speech-3-182"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20091111.18.3-182"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"First of all, I would like to express my complete support with regard to the question that was asked by Mr Reul and, in particular, to point out that the fundamental issue – the fundamental political issue here – is precisely a matter of joint programming of research.
What happened on the issue of joint programming on neurodegenerative diseases and, in particular, Alzheimer’s disease, was that the rules changed in the middle of the process. We went from having a report to having a resolution, thereby taking away our codecision powers on this issue. We stopped being MEPs and instead became advisers. I would therefore like to know, at least, whether what we recommend will be taken into account or not.
Programming research activities, in any area, is a political choice and not a technical choice and, in this regard, Parliament’s role should be emphasised and strengthened. In my view, defining priorities that are political means that they should be scrutinised, should be transparent and should be democratic. What happened in relation to the joint decision and joint programming of research on Alzheimer’s disease is a process that should not be repeated. Should it ever be repeated, please at least give us plenty of warning. I therefore hope that the last thing that can happen is that the decisions and the recommendations tabled by Parliament on this issue are not taken into consideration."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples