Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-12-16-Speech-4-007"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101216.2.4-007"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, encouraging a European conscience that respects and defends multiculturalism represents a major challenge to the European institutions in their effort to achieve broad cohesion and solidarity between the citizens of the Member States of the European Union.
Knowledge of our history, familiarity with our multicultural cultural heritage and information for the young generation about the ideas and people who were at the forefront in building the European Union may help to bridge the gap between the European Union and its citizens.
The European Commission has undertaken, on the instructions of the Council of the European Union, to draft a proposal to transform the intergovernmental European Heritage label into a Community institution. Broad public consultation and an impact assessment have illustrated that integrating this institution into European initiatives would help to improve the image and credibility of the label, provided that it is based on clearly predefined criteria and emphasises the symbolic, rather than the aesthetic, nature of a monument or site; in other words, it would make a statement that European history is the result of a rich and mutually complementary common cultural heritage and that the European Union is rooted in strong values, such as freedom, democracy, respect for human rights, cultural diversity, tolerance and solidarity.
We started with a very ambitious approach to the label; as a weapon in our foreign policy arsenal which would go beyond the borders of the European Union, it could be awarded to other states in Europe and – why not – even outside our continent. For the moment, it would appear to be more realistic for it to be used as a means of deepening cohesion between the Member States of the Union and for it to be restricted initially to its Member States.
We countered the Commission’s proposal that the label should be awarded to a maximum of 27 sites with a proposal that the procedure should be repeated every two years, in order to maintain the value of the institution and allow time for sites to be selected and then monitored, once the label has been awarded. We agree that, because of the symbolic value of the award, as a factor that contributes to European unification, transnational sites need to be favoured, because they support cohesion, promote the creation of networks and encourage cooperation between Member States or regions. That is why they should take first place in the quota. For practical reasons, one Member State will act as coordinator between the European group of experts and the Commission.
We approached the transformation of the label not as an administrative transformation of the old transnational institution, but as a new institution with clearly defined selection criteria and binding obligations on the part of recipients if they are to keep it. The group of experts, the networking, the symbolic character and the monitoring of the awardees indicate a different approach which should not be confused with the previous transnational institution. That is why, in the aim of safeguarding the old institution and promoting the validity of the new institution, we felt that the transitional provisions in Article 18 in the Commission’s proposal were not needed. We also sought ways of strengthening the role of the twelve-member team of experts in the Commission text by adding another member proposed by the Committee of the Regions, and we tried to ensure the team was more involved in the label award or withdrawal procedure.
In the same context, and in order to strengthen the role of the European Parliament, we insisted on the Commission’s obligation to publish a full list of pre-selected sites, before the final selection, and to advise the European Parliament and the Council accordingly. This will give the European Parliament and the Council time to react if any issues arise.
To close this brief presentation, I should like to thank the shadow rapporteurs, the Commission representatives and the Council for their creative contribution to the report which you will be asked to vote on shortly. I trust that we shall cooperate in the same spirit at the next stage of the consultation."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples