Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-02-Speech-2-012"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030902.1.2-012"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, this year's Athens Treaty is being hailed as historic, but we all know that it is only now that the work of integration begins. Integration means establishing social and economic cohesion in an EU of 25 and, if you will pardon my saying so Commissioner, you still have not given us your blueprint for achieving this, although it is high time that you did so. There is no trace of even a strategy in the Second progress report on cohesion. It seems to me that you think that distributing money here, there and everywhere will somehow keep everyone happy. No, Commissioner, we cannot afford to do that anymore, because if we do not manage to bring about economic and social cohesion in this EU of 25 the whole edifice will come tumbling down! We need root and branch reform of the Structural Funds and we need clear guidance on what our aims are when spending the money. Where those aims are concerned, we were of course taught a hard and painful lesson in the last two summers: last year we had floods; this year it was fire.
Commissioner, I think it is clear that at long last we have to be guided by the Göteborg conclusions: that sustainable development has to be at the heart of the Structural Funds; that social and employment policy aspects on the one hand and economic aspects on the other have to be given equal weight, and that EU money should only be deployed if this is the case. In too many places we have simply squandered EU funds, and this is no longer acceptable in an EU of 25.
It is true that specific geographical characteristics do bring with them particular development requirements, but unlike many Members of this House I do not think that geographical characteristics are a disadvantage in themselves, but that poverty in these areas is much more of a disadvantage. I only have criticism for the attempts being made by many Members here to protect their vested rights and secure their own stipends, when surely the actual aim has to be economic and social cohesion. I protest against any attempts to introduce new criteria here that do not relate to poverty and unemployment, which cause people real suffering. That is why I believe that it is right for the Commission to stick to its goals and, particularly in areas where there are difficulties, for the poverty criteria to be the decisive ones and not the geographical characteristics. Only then, with these sound principles, will it be possible to tackle different kinds of difficulties, for example the problems of restructuring in many areas, including in wealthier countries, the restructuring difficulties in agriculture, female poverty and the depopulation of urban areas. These things too should be taken into account and we have a whole series of instruments to enable us to do so, for example phasing out and subsidies. I hope, Commissioner, that you will finally table a clear blueprint for achieving sustainable development through the Structural Funds."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples