Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-04-Speech-2-319"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060404.24.2-319"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Europe should first and foremost be there for its citizens, and not only the citizens for Europe. That is why I am pleased to see that Mr Takkula’s report has turned the Citizens for Europe programme into the Europe for the citizens programme.
I am less impressed with the way in which the Council of the European Union is full of the importance of involving the citizen in the European Union, but subsequently fobs us off with an excuse when it comes to funding the Europe for the citizens programme. The Council’s parsimony does it no credit. What is worse, it has made the discussion on the Takkula report particularly difficult, because when we talk about involving citizens in the European Union, we actually mean all citizens. This also, for example, includes those European citizens who have become the victim of dictatorial regimes or internal strife in Europe, or new citizens, immigrants and citizens from third countries who have lived in Europe for a long time, as well as citizens of all ages.
Were sufficient funds available – which they are not – we would have certainly been able to fund a wide range of projects that would have touched all those groups. As it happens, we can only fund a very limited number of programmes. To avoid disappointment on the part of people who are full of excitement when they come to submit their applications, only for the Commission to turn them down, Mr Takkula was brave enough to disappoint people at this stage, so as to make it absolutely clear from the outset who qualifies for funding and who does not. That is understandable and in general, I support this way of working.
When it comes to remembering victims of European dictatorships, however, this approach is painful and lamentable. Are the victims of one dictatorship more important than another? Of course they are not. We should try to avoid creating that impression, even at the risk of the Commission having to disappoint people at a later stage. That is why I hope that everyone will back the amendment tabled by the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, in which we make an appeal to remember the victims of all European dictatorships. The European citizen should not be at the receiving end of the Council’s economy drives.
It is still not too late. The final decision on the financial perspectives will be taken before the report returns to this House for second reading. I would make an urgent appeal to the parties involved to make more funds available for culture, in general, and the Europe for the citizens programme, in particular. Without citizens, the European Union is nothing, as indeed the Council, Commission and Parliament have proved time and again. We therefore need money on the table, because the programme offers many opportunities, including town twinning opportunities, support for think tanks and NGOs, as well as the promotion of contacts between European citizens, for example in sports clubs. They are all fine ideas, but fine ideas with no money to back them up are nothing but empty promises. If Europe wants to be there for its citizens, it should not leave them in the lurch now."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples