Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-18-Speech-4-088"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060518.17.4-088"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Some of the proposals that we tabled were unfortunately rejected, which were as follows:
maintaining the eligibility of regional disasters in the Solidarity Fund; and
the possibility of higher levels of financial assistance from the Solidarity Fund – 75% rather than 50% of the total eligible costs – for ‘cohesion’ countries and for ‘convergence’ regions.
I should like to say that the same European Parliament adopted on the same day, in the Quecedo report, the recital stating that ‘the EUSF should continue to enable action to be taken in the case of disasters which although significant do not achieve the minimum level required and that assistance may also be provided in special circumstances in cases where most of the population in a specific region has been affected by a disaster which will have a serious, long-term effect on their living conditions’.
This contradiction between the content of the adopted resolutions – legislative and non-legislative – is highly significant.
In other words, when it comes to stating good intentions – such as in the ‘Quecedo’ report – the majority in Parliament approves, but when it comes to making the execution and the funding of those intentions a reality – such as in the Berend report – the majority in Parliament turns its back, rejecting the regional dimension of the Fund and clearly benefiting the large countries, with their majority representation in Parliament."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples