Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-09-21-Speech-2-689"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100921.23.2-689"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is more than two years since we debated the issue of the disadvantaged, more remote regions in the European Parliament. When I re-read my original speech from that period, I had to admit that it was still very applicable and that I would not change a single word. Unfortunately, I have to say on behalf of the European Conservatives and Reformists Group that we do not support the joint draft resolution, and there are four reasons for this.
Firstly, we are against the idea of social engineering and excessive interference by public authorities. We have to understand that some of the problems of island, mountain or sparsely-populated areas cannot be resolved. These are the specific problems relating to their geographical and structural characteristics, which we cannot change.
Secondly, we do not agree with the idea that all island, mountain or sparsely populated regions form a homogenous group with common features. What does the French mountain centre of Chamonix have in common with the Greek island of Lefkada or the Finnish region above the Arctic Circle in the area of Rovaniemi?
Thirdly, we have completely lost sight of the border regions in the proposal and in the actual debate. Clearly, I must not remind anyone here that, under Article 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, special attention should be paid within the framework of cohesion policy to rural areas, areas affected by industrial transition, and regions which are seriously and permanently disadvantaged as a result of natural or demographic conditions. While an island will always remain an island, and a mountain will always be a mountain, borders, or at least administrative ones, can disappear. Greater emphasis on border regions would therefore be significant.
Fourthly, we consider it premature to be debating specific new legislative measures, regional development programmes and financial resources for these areas. It is clear that the debate on the European funds and their use after 2013 has begun to intensify. It is clear that individual states, regions and territories are trying, within the framework of this debate, to draw attention to their problems and the needs they would like to finance from European sources. It is beyond dispute that disadvantaged regions deserve different conditions when it comes to cofinancing, the rules for public assistance and the regulation of the internal market through the application of customs rules. The European framework should also take account of this, making it possible to retain the specific nature of these regions while mitigating their limiting circumstances.
However, it is a question of the extent to which complicated European programmes are effective in this case. European structural policy should rather be driven by the idea that financial resources must go primarily to the poorest regions, where there is the most need. This should apply regardless of whether an island, mountain or sparsely populated region is involved."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples