Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-12-13-Speech-1-200"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101213.20.1-200"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to add my congratulations and thanks to the two rapporteurs for their successful work. The comments made by Mr Luhan on the subject of the ‘Future architecture of cohesion policy post-2013’ are particularly to be welcomed. Although the conclusions on the Fifth Cohesion Report already indicate the Commission’s initial ideas on the subject, Mr Luhan’s report is an important contribution to determining Parliament’s position in respect of the Commission. Like the rapporteur, I therefore consider it eminently sensible for cohesion policy to be in harmony with the objectives of the EU 2020 strategy in the future. However, the individual regions must still be able to decide their own priority areas.
Not all regions are the same; even within an individual Member State, the regions differ. A maximum of two or three priorities – one of which may have already been made mandatory – leaves the regions little scope for manoeuvre. The regions need to be given room to invest in their infrastructure and people according to their own priorities. With this scenario, specific issues such as demographic changes may not be able to be taken sufficiently into account. That would not be much of a regional policy adapted to the needs of the regions, such as the Commission is always talking about. For this reason, I believe that we as Parliament have to make it quite clear from the start that the regions must not be allowed to be weakened relative to the Member States. The partnership principle needs to be strengthened further.
The significance of the regions of the EU varies greatly depending on the structure of the state. For this reason, particular significance must be attached to the principle of subsidiarity. This needs to be taken into account in the Commission’s idea of establishing innovation and development partnerships between the Commission and Member States in the future.
Without going into too much detail, perhaps I might be permitted to discuss briefly the importance of Objective 3. I expressly agree with the rapporteur when he talks of difficulties in the border territories of the EU – both internal and external borders. This objective needs to be brought into play more in the future. In my opinion, too little weight is being given to Objective 3 in the current debate on the future of cohesion policy. In particular, cooperation between the regions situated at the former external borders of the EU – and I am referring here to my home region of Saxony – needs to be developed far more."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples