Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-13-Speech-1-110"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991213.5.1-110"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would firstly like to congratulate Parliament and the Commission for having brought the conciliation to a successful conclusion. I do not, however, wish to congratulate the Council because I feel that there has been no response from the Council in terms of the generosity needed for future programmes. Therefore, I would like to congratulate the two main protagonists though because they have furthermore ensured that everything will function normally in January and the budgets are ready for the start of the meetings.
In this context however, I would like to say a few words which should be included in the Minutes rather than disappear into thin air. I would like to talk about a problem that I observed throughout the negotiation: that of the difficult, complex and rather vague concept of culture and education that most of the European Union’s institutions seem to hold.
I shall highlight some of the contradictions. Strangely, the educational and cultural programmes tend to be fully agreed on, to be voted for most enthusiastically by all parties, and yet, these are, nevertheless, the programmes that receive the worst treatment in budgetary terms. This is the first contradiction.
On the other hand, the cultural programmes, and specifically “Socrates”, are the ones that benefit the most people and, moreover, involve few intermediaries. “Socrates” directly reaches those who gain from it. We are not talking about lobbies here, but about people who are benefiting from something that is by no means a subsidy, but a life-long investment.
On the other hand, this is a budget that accumulates and attracts broad cooperation from all countries. For the “Socrates” programme for example, the European Union only pays 10% in my country, Spain. The rest is made up by the institutions, the Spanish State and the families themselves. We can see then that there is an 80% increase in all educational programmes in general. What do I mean by this? Simply that we have wasted a great deal of money on education. If the Council had been more generous, many institutions and individuals would have put money on the table.
I would like to say something else that I think is important: education cannot be guided by the principle of subsidiarity alone. Does the exchange of educational methods affect the principle of subsidiarity? Can getting to know another country, understanding it and experiencing it be considered an attack on the principle of subsidiarity? Countries will never be able to implement the Socrates programme on their own. This is a programme that transcends and surpasses the stature of individual nations. That is its greatness, its power and its strength, and that is why everyone believes in it to the extent that we can speak of thousands of good results. Above all though, there is one result that must never be forgotten: the capability for cohesion and unity that this programme gives us."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples