Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-18-Speech-2-034"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000118.2.2-034"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the European Union’s competition policy has been of central importance since European integration began. It is an integral part of the tension, inherent in the very concept of European integration, between solidarity and cooperation between Member States, with a view to creating a better and more efficient environment for the people and the economy, and competition, which should provide incentives to improve the competitiveness and future viability of the European Union as an entity.
It is therefore with some justification that competition policy is one of the most important policies. We can be proud of a European competition culture, for it is this that will make the social market economy a reality. We can be proud of monopolies and mergers supervision. However, we must be vigilant in the face of global operators, against whom nation-states are no longer able to impose limits. That is why we should bear in mind what was said by the French writer Vivienne Forestier, who described the state of the world in terms of the economy’s reign of terror. Society is surrendering itself to the economy. That is precisely what we do not want in the European Union. We are aware that in this age of strategic alliances and millennium mergers – in 1998 USD 2 400 billion was paid out in connection with take-overs – restrictive practices are being held in check, not just by our own rules but also by bilateral cooperation with the USA or Japan, or others, until we get the international competition law we so badly need.
European competition policy, as we very often forget, is not just important for fair competition as such, but also for prices, growth and employment, and hence for the public. In common with the other Members, I call for Parliament to have codecision rights where competition law is concerned. It is essential that this long overdue step be taken.
It is also important to underline the connection between competition policy and consumer protection. I welcome the fact that Commissioner Monti wants to make progress in this area in the dialogue with the European Parliament, as he does in the dialogue with non-governmental organisations, consumer protection associations and the public. Greater transparency will also help to achieve public acceptance of decisions relating to competition policy. Then it is possible to understand that, for example, lower electricity and telecommunications prices are due to European competition policy, and Brussels should not be pilloried when aid decisions are taken which are, of course, bound to cause problems at a particular moment in time or in a local context.
It is particularly important for there to be clarity in relation to competition rules in view of EU enlargement. Emphasis must also be placed on the fact that a state aid policy – and the Jonckheer report makes this very clear – must continue to afford each state the freedom to define and organise the tasks of the public sector and ownership structures on an independent basis. At the same time, it must be made clear that aid can serve a useful purpose, with a view to offsetting the deficiencies of the market and furthering Community objectives.
A word on the White Paper: the revision of Articles 81 and 82 represents a change of direction in monopolies policy. I am opposed to this, unlike the majority of this House and indeed the majority of my own group, because I believe that, in competition policy terms, the directly applicable exception system is in every sense inferior to a system of prohibition unless certain conditions are met, and I believe there is a threat of renationalisation. The system currently in force creates transparency, affords enterprises legal certainty and has, without a shadow of a doubt, led to discipline and acted as a deterrent on account of the notification requirement. The problem of overwork highlighted by the Commission is not a sufficient reason for making radical changes to the legal system. Indeed, it is debatable whether this could be carried through at all without amending the Treaty."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples