Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-11-26-Speech-4-151"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20091126.18.4-151"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"It is generally possible to welcome any agreement which improves cooperation with states neighbouring the European Union. If we compare the position of the states neighbouring the EU, then we see that – after Russia – the most important partner is Ukraine. The exchange of information in the fields of science and technology, the joint implementation of programmes, worker exchanges and the sharing of expertise in the area of managing scientific and research institutions, these are aims that can only be supported.
However, I would like to raise a specific reservation over the method of assessing the agreement. If the authors introduce efficiency indicators such as ‘number of work trips and meetings’, and even ‘number of different areas of cooperative endeavour’ then I have serious doubts as to the familiarity of the report’s author with the issue in question. Section 7, ‘Measures Against Fraud’, makes a quite desperate impression, while statement 8.2.2 makes me question my sanity. In the age of electronic communications, I cannot understand why a ‘report’ on an agreement requires work trips and participation in meetings on the part of specialists and officials from the EU and Ukraine. In conclusion, I am happy to support this framework agreement because I know that in the Sixth Framework Programme, developments in science and research were already being integrated very actively and with genuinely good results. The aforementioned reservations notwithstanding, the GUE/NGL group supports the decision of the Council."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples