Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-03-09-Speech-3-283"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050309.18.3-283"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, whenever we take a stand on various issues in this Chamber, we must always justify whether these issues should really be decided at EU level. The principle of subsidiarity is not something merely to be referred to in formal contexts, but rather should direct all our activities. We all know that that is not how it works at all in Brussels and Strasbourg. Political power is continually being shifted from the Member States to the institutions of the EU. There are two driving forces behind this: the desire for a superstate, and a lack of political principle. A majority of the EU’s elected representatives and of its civil servants want to create a new superstate. For them, the principle of subsidiarity is not a guiding principle but rather an obstacle in their way. Lack of political principle means that the Members of the House are more often than not prepared to cooperate with decisions that are to their liking, even when it is obvious that these are strictly national matters. The end is allowed to justify the means.
Mrs Locatelli’s report, too, entirely neglects the principle of subsidiarity. It does not put the question of what the EU should do when the Member States are unable to deal with a task themselves. The question it asks is how the EU can drive forward the research that an establishment wishes to have. How are we to deal with small and medium-sized enterprises’ need for research? How are we to awaken the interest of young people and women in science? How are we to strengthen the links between research and industry? How are we to increase total research funding to three per cent of GDP? And so on. These are all things that the Member States themselves are better equipped to deal with.
Finland and Sweden now already set aside three percent of GDP for research. If other countries want to set aside the same amount, they only have to do so. The research funds will not increase as a result of the Member States sending it via EU authorities. On the contrary, this will result in increased bureaucracy and additional costs.
Competition between countries to find good solutions to this type of problem normally results in faster progress than central management at higher levels. In the research world, this is known as institutional competition. Competition is important not just between enterprises, but also between institutions. Competition between countries in various areas is one of the most important explanations for the great progress made by the Western world in recent centuries.
Mrs Locatelli should therefore have asked the question: what can EU institutions do for research in Europe that the countries cannot do themselves? There are many such questions. They fall into five categories, these being basic research, free movement of research staff within the EU, large-scale research in areas such as nuclear energy and space technology, infrastructure for research networks and common security issues for the EU. The EU’s research policy should be limited to areas such as these, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity that is fêted in banquet speeches and draft constitutions. EU research policy is on the wrong track."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples