Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-19-Speech-3-025"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000119.2.3-025"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr Gama, by a happy coincidence you have inherited the timetable for the specific responsibility of setting up an Intergovernmental Conference, which is clearly crucial to the future of Europe. Furthermore – and this will be my second point – you will also be chairing a conference on employment and economic and social cohesion, the importance of which is clear to everyone.
On the subject of the Intergovernmental Conference, I must state the position of my Group and our proposals. With regard to the content, previous speakers have rightly underlined the inadequacy of Helsinki. Such a narrow agenda is not acceptable. At least four specific points must be included on the agenda. These are the legal status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and its implications for the people, the essential mechanism of reinforced cooperation, the gradual integration of the foreign and security policy, with particular emphasis on conflict prevention in the Community pillar, and finally, the revision of the obsolete Euratom Treaty. The objectives of this Treaty must be reviewed and incorporated within the EU Treaty.
As for the method, we have been fully aware of the limitations of the intergovernmental approach for some time now, as well as the limitations of taking decisions by unanimous vote. The Council has wrongly chosen not to change this method which is disappointing. Yet if the Council is to prove its claim of wanting a more democratic and stronger Union, then at the very least the European Parliament, but also the national parliaments, must be involved as much as possible. This House must participate to the same extent as the Commission because these are the two institutions which have a Community vision. It would therefore be logical to have an assent procedure at the end of negotiations.
Without this, I, like other Members, fear that the gulf between the people and the European institutions can only grow. We witnessed an important process in Seattle where there was a strong reaction from the people to a world body which is not understood and whose operation is perceived as being dangerous for society as a whole. The European Union should not be subject to the same process which I would personally regard as regrettable. You are soon to tour the capitals in order to convince your colleagues to extend the agenda and change the method. We will await the results of your efforts before deciding on the future of this Intergovernmental Conference.
There is one point which I feel has not been sufficiently stressed. It is virtually essential that this conference is a success, otherwise the European Union will be stymied for good. I am particularly thinking of the tax issue, which we all hold dear. For many years, we have been incapable of taking ambitious decisions on environmental taxation because the unanimity rule prevented us from doing so. This brings me to the second point of my intervention – employment – as this type of taxation also generates jobs. Innovation, of which everyone is in favour, seems to be the keyword for the employment summit. Although innovation is clearly a factor in competitiveness, it must not be allowed to mask a reality which is darker and more worrying. Innovation can often play a major role, without doubt, but competitiveness is at times being achieved through dubious mechanisms which are leading to a sometimes significant deterioration in working conditions in Europe, an increase in risks, a worsening of the environmental situation and general stress.
This is not just idle talk. A recent report from the European Foundation in Dublin reveals that working conditions are poor or worsening for many workers. As for the environment, the 1999 report of the European Environment Agency shows that out of the 12 parameters studied, 11 are in a position of either status quo or deterioration. Furthermore, the sinking of the oil tanker
clearly shows that competitiveness in one economic sector may be achieved at the cost of a deterioration in working conditions, an increase in risks and a serious threat to the environment.
It is therefore time to review certain standards which are currently being used. This need is regrettably not very apparent in your document. As an example, innovation can go hand-in-hand with the goal of increasing productivity, no longer the productivity of labour, but the productivity of scarce and non-renewable resources. This is the fast track, not only to ensure sustainable development, but also to create jobs which are more stable, safer, less stressful and more promising for the future. This brings me back to my starting point. All this can only be achieved if we change the way the European institutions work. This is the objective which we must pursue."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples