Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-18-Speech-2-105"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20000118.4.2-105"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
". The Berend report gives us an interesting analysis of the situation and economic development of the regions of the European Union. Nonetheless, the French members of the Union for a Europe of Nations Group feels it cannot approve some of the statements made therein. Paragraph 26, for example, “Draws attention to the special need to consolidate the budget as a prerequisite for the success of economic and monetary union and the enlargement of the Union”. At a time when, in order to fulfil the convergence criteria, Member States are forced to undergo a strict budgetary slimming regime, one that would be perfectly justified if they undertook it of their own initiative, the federalists are displaying an astonishing pecuniary gluttony. As an admission of the failure of the cohesion policy and EMU, the lack of results is put down to the lack of money, with everyone competing in eloquence to demand more and more appropriations without anyone asking questions about the effectiveness of the money spent. What can one say about a budgetary procedure which involves setting objectives for expenditure rather than a ceiling on expenditure and trying at all costs to find projects in order to spend the approved appropriations, rather than allocating the appropriations to existing projects? Expenditure becomes an end in itself, evidence of the success of a programme. The statistics published by the European Commission in its sixth report do however show, as Mr Berend pointed out, the limitations of the policy being implemented: The relative weight of the most wealthy regions of the European Union was strengthened between 1986 et 1996, testifying to a concentration of wealth, jobs and activity in certain areas: Hamburg, Brussels, Antwerp, Luxembourg, the Paris region, Darmstadt, Oberbayern, Bremen, Vienna, Karlsruhe and Emilia-Romagna. Quite the opposite of what the rapporteur stated, the establishment of economic and monetary union should exacerbate the exodus of population from the most outlying, the most rural and the least populated regions in favour of the central axes of the Union (the Benelux countries, North West Germany, Northern Italy, the Parisian region, etc). The poorest regions are gradually making good their underdevelopment. In 1986, the average of the 10 poorest regions amounted to 41% of the overall Community GNP. In 1996 it was 50%. Progress is particularly marked in Portugal and Ireland. In fact, if the rich are ever more wealthy and the extremely poor are less poor, then it seems that the middle-range regions, covered by Objective 2, are experiencing an occasionally significant downturn in their GNP, and a worsening of the employment situation. This phenomenon is particularly marked in France: the GNP of the Champagne-Ardennes region, which it is my honour to represent, has gone from 105% to 94% of the Community average, that of the Loire region has dropped from 95% to 91%, and that of the Auvergne from 89% to 83%. This is a generalised tendency, sparing neither the Rhône-Alpes, nor Alsace. It has been confirmed in Sweden and Finland, countries where unemployment has in fact increased to a worrying degree over the last few years, as in many regions of the United Kingdom. It may therefore seem strange that, when the Structural Funds were reformed, Objective 2, dedicated to industrial and rural areas undergoing economic restructuring, should have been sacrificed in favour of Objectives 1 and 3. For the period 1999-2006, the total appropriation for this Objective will be ECU 22.5 billion, a figure more or less identical to that for the period 1994-1999. The rural regions eligible under Objective 5b will be included among the main victims of this situation: in France, 27% of the populations eligible for Structural Funds are going to lose their eligibility at the end of the transition period, a figure which is occasionally much larger in some regions such as the Loire region, Alsace or Lower Normandy, political strongholds of the right-wing that were the victims of the petty political vote chasing of the left-wing coalition government. Based as it is on such choices, it is to be doubted whether regional policy can contribute to harmonious regional planning within the Member States of the European Union."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph