Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-12-16-Speech-4-026"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101216.2.4-026"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, during a stage in its life in which Europe is undergoing a crisis of identity and prospects, I think that the establishment of a European Heritage Label that identifies those sites – both material and immaterial – of high symbolic and educational value for the history, culture and creation of the European Union, is particularly significant.
My sincere thanks go to the rapporteur, Mrs Paliadeli, who efficiently took on board the proposals and additions suggested by many of us in the Committee on Culture and Education, providing, in particular, for procedures that are more certain and more respectful of the Treaty of Lisbon with regard to the subdivision of tasks among Member States, the Commission, the Council and Parliament. As some of my fellow Members have picked up on, we also strove to make sure there was no overlap between the label and other initiatives of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) or the European Council’s historic and cultural itineraries.
Indeed, on the basis of well-defined criteria, the Member States will present not more than two actively managed sites every two years. This is an important point: the Member States must show that they believe in the sites and therefore manage them in an educational way, involving the people. The Commission, meanwhile, will be responsible for pre-selection after hearing from a panel of experts, but it will also assume a monitoring role, will assess the effectiveness of the management of the sites every six years, and may also withdraw the label. Parliament comes out of this with a stronger role because not only does it appoint four of the 16 members of the European panel, but also because it has an active relationship with the list of pre-selected sites.
I also support the solution provided to the complex problem of the marks already assigned on an intergovernmental basis to many Member States that, in any case, though not suitable for the new system and the new criteria, will retain their earlier mark and will not therefore be downgraded.
I also appreciate the priority given to transnational sites, which will be a very interesting challenge for Europe, and the role assigned to the Committee of the Regions as part of an approach of subsidiarity, as well as the emphasis on the necessary involvement of Member States in the selection phase, including municipalities and regions, in order to avoid their being only partially involved. However, I think an extra effort by the Member States would also be useful. It would be very important for them to launch competitions aimed at young people in schools and universities to start a process to identify the sites, which would also become a way to reconstruct a common European history and destiny and mean that they, too, would contribute to the sense of belonging and European citizenship."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples