Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-13-Speech-1-020"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000313.2.1-020"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it gives me great satisfaction to be taking part in this debate in the European Parliament on the Lisbon Special Summit. I am not doing this for form’s sake. I am doing so with the same enthusiasm and determination with which Portugal has committed itself to the European project.
There is, however, also a strategic deficit as regards the major economic and social issues. I would like to state our objective clearly here. It is to transform the EU within ten years into the most dynamic and the most competitive knowledge-based economy in the world. However, our objective is not to achieve this at any price, but rather to achieve it on the basis of a society which is capable of creating social cohesion and generating high levels of employment and growth. In order to do this we need a strategy with four essential pillars. We need to create the basis for a knowledge-based economy and an information society at EU level. We need to implement the economic reforms needed to make us competitive and innovative, whilst at the same time strengthening social cohesion. Finally, we need to make a major commitment to more and better jobs and to modernise our welfare systems to ensure that they are sustainable in the future. We must also commit ourselves to macroeconomic policies which will not only guarantee stability, but which will also do more to encourage growth and employment.
The strategy’s first pillar is therefore to establish conditions which will enable Europe to successfully face the challenge of the knowledge-based economy. The set of measures and policies relating to the information society is of vital importance here, and our basis for this is the excellent work done by the Commission with the e-Europe initiative. We must establish conditions which will enable Europe to reduce telecommunications costs, so that Internet access does not become an agent of social exclusion and division. It must rather be a real agent of equality of opportunity and of citizenship. Steps are currently being taken in Europe to link all schools and all training centres to the Internet, and provide them with staff who are properly trained for this task. Plans are under way to put all of our public services, including open invitations to tender, on line as soon as possible. Steps are being taken to develop electronic commerce which will overcome the obstacles, including the legal ones, that still exist. A strong commitment has been made with regard to content, because the information society is not just a network and will depend on content and on taking advantage of Europe’s diversity of cultural and scientific output. It is not enough, however, to commit ourselves to the information society. Our vision is to incorporate the information society into what we might call a genuinely educational society as a European response to the knowledge-based economy. This requires coordination between our science and research policies. Hence the importance of the Commission’s initiative on the European scientific area, which will require a firm commitment to linking our education and training policies at EU level with science and research, so that our society is in reality transformed into a genuinely educational society, creating equality of opportunity for access to the technologies of the future.
The second pillar of the strategy consists of economic reforms for innovation and competitiveness. We are currently right in the middle of the Cardiff process, and we are, of course, in favour of reforming the telecommunications, transport and energy markets. We feel that it is essential for us to follow the road towards integration of our financial markets, and once again the Commission’s contribution, with its action plan for financial services, is of enormous importance. There must be a European commitment to establishing conditions for a genuine venture capital market which can in particular support small businesses which have come into existence as a result of the technologies of the future. What is particularly crucial here is the Commission’s action plan for venture capital and the excellent work currently being done by the European Investment Bank for the Lisbon Summit. I feel, however, that the mechanisms for reform of the single market laid down in Cardiff are not enough. I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome the initiatives the Commission has prepared on the subject of business policy and innovation policy, which seek to create a framework for coordinating our action in the Member States and between Member States and the European institutions.
The third pillar is perhaps the one which means the most to all of us and to those we represent, even if it is a less politically fashionable subject for discussion. This is the pillar that concerns social cohesion, the commitment to creating more and better jobs in Europe, the establishment of conditions enabling us to combat the social exclusion which undeniably exists in our societies, and which we must combat in a coordinated and determined way. The third pillar also concerns the modernisation of our social protection systems in order to guarantee their sustainability. Firstly, employment policies: here we have a solid starting point, which is the Luxembourg process. This is a process which is firmly embedded in the way our institutions function. I would like to mention what I think is perhaps the most relevant issue for the future, and that is the issue of lifelong learning as the fundamental basis for social transformation and as a prerequisite for a new stage in social dialogue, that is in dialogue between Europe’s social partners. Then there are the issues related to combating social exclusion, exclusion perpetrated by policies on employment, social security, education and training. We must also acknowledge that if we want to combat exclusion, we must create specific measures for target groups particularly affected by this deficit in citizenship, which prevails in so many parts of our society. Finally, there is the sustainability of our welfare system: we need to look not only at how it is funded, and at what methods are used, but also at the root of the problem. The root of the problem is the whether we can guarantee a high rate of employment, because this is an essential condition for a sustainable system of social protection in Europe. I would like to mention three aspects of this issue. Firstly, we need growth in service industry jobs, covering both the most high-level technology and also less sophisticated technology. Secondly, there must be a more flexible approach to the retirement age issue. Thirdly, and this is a particularly important point, women must be more involved in the world of work. To achieve this, it is absolutely essential today for us to develop support services in our societies for the family, and particularly support services for children. This would bring threefold benefits, because it would directly benefit job creation, it would benefit real equality of opportunity between women and men, and finally, it would help to provide better conditions for women wishing to enter work and give us a higher rate of employment, which is more likely to sustain our model of social protection.
Lastly, the fourth pillar. This consists of macroeconomic policies to assist growth and employment. We were able to coordinate our macroeconomic policies so as to create a stable base for the launch of the euro. Well, we need to ensure that we can do the same to achieve an economic climate more favourable for creating jobs and for economic growth. I would like to say, on this subject, that it would be extremely desirable for Europe to achieve, on an ongoing basis, an average level of economic growth of more than 3%, whilst of course respecting natural differences in performance between countries. It is also desirable for Europe to create jobs and thus achieve employment rates similar to those in parts of the world where they are highest, that is, above 70%, instead of staying at our current levels of just above 60%.
So there is a political deficit, a strategic deficit, and also a deficit in the coordination of our policies and measures. We are not starting from scratch here, as we have had the experience of two processes that we can use as a basis for building the future in all other areas. These are the coordination of economic policies, as laid down in Maastricht, to provide for the launch of the euro, and the coordination of the Luxembourg process for employment policies, which, as I have said, today forms an essential part of our collective life in the EU.
We do not intend to launch a new process in Lisbon as a successor to the Luxembourg, Cardiff and Cologne processes. What we do want to do is to establish new conditions so that we can first of all coordinate, simplify and strengthen the three existing processes, and bring them together to achieve a common goal. Secondly, we want to supplement them with fundamental new approaches, such as those relating to the information society, and to the knowledge-based economy, and also those relating to the modernisation of social protection and to combating social exclusion.
Lastly, with regard to the principle of subsidiarity, we want to adopt, as fully and as widely as possible, an open method of coordination which can in particular take advantage of the area where we had the greatest success in linking our policies, that is the Luxembourg process. We must do this by means of objectives and instruments which are clear and, wherever possible, quantifiable. This method is based on guidelines that have been the subject of political agreement at European level and on what is now known as benchmarking. By this I mean indicators which facilitate the exchange of good practice between the various Member States, based on national plans or initiatives which can bring together our various policies for the same objectives, while respecting our own diversity, and using objective monitoring and comparison techniques. These techniques will provide a healthy rivalry and at the same time will enable us to compare our achievements in economic and social terms with other particularly dynamic parts of the world around us.
We will not, of course, achieve all of these objectives in Lisbon. What is at issue is our ongoing and united determination, and our desire to gradually eliminate our political deficit, our strategic deficit and our deficit in coordination. First and foremost, we want to increase the EU’s capacity to take a strategic political lead on economic and social issues, as this is an essential condition for Europe to overcome the challenge facing it with regard to the new information and knowledge society.
I think that we could have a strategy for winning on two fronts: we could gain in terms of stability but also in terms of growth. We would gain in terms of competitiveness but also in terms of economic and social cohesion. We definitely want to be at least as competitive if not more competitive than the most competitive and modern economies in the world. It is commonplace these days to say that the American economy is the most dynamic of all, but watch out! However, we do not want to achieve this at any price. We want to achieve this whilst respecting our own identity. The issue at the heart of our identity is a social model which is more than just a set of standards. This social model is a genuine form of civilisation, the European civilisation of which we are proud and which we will never allow to be endangered.
We can safely say that the European Union is at the moment gaining in substance. Following the success of the single market and the single currency, the area of security, freedom and justice is being developed and the common foreign and security policy is taking its first steps. At the same time, the enlargement negotiations are gaining momentum and it could be said that enlargement is irrevocably turning into a meeting of Europe with itself and with its own history.
(
)
Europe is also going through a period of economic recovery and optimism. We should not however, harbour any illusions. It may be true that the economic situation is improving, but it is also true that we are still facing considerable problems in the shape of unemployment and social exclusion, and many people have highlighted the difficulty of sustaining our model of social protection. It could be said that our economy and society are today facing the challenge of a new model, the model of the knowledge-based economy and society. Knowledge has become the main agent in the creation of wealth, as well as the main factor in the division between rich and poor countries. Knowledge is today the real raw material of work.
Europe is facing this new model of the knowledge-based economy together with three other challenges: economic and market globalisation, the speed of technological change and the ageing of its population. It is therefore natural that two fears should be prevalent in today’s Europe. The first is that Europe is irreversibly losing its leading position in the world economy to the United States. The second fear, which is perhaps more serious, is that in order to recover this leading position, in order not to lose ground irreversibly, Europe may have to put its own social model at risk, to make social exclusion in Europe worse, and this will affect our own citizens. In a matter like this, we must be able to distinguish between fact and fiction. It is true that in recent years, the American economy has experienced higher rates of growth and improved productivity, and that its economy has been able to very rapidly transform ideas and plans into market-ready businesses, goods and services. The North American financial system has in particular shown itself to be quicker and better placed to support the progress of the new knowledge-based economy. And it is true that in the United States of America, venture capital works much more effectively than it does in the European Union, even today.
It is also true, however, and we should not forget this, that European society is more humane, more egalitarian and more just. Furthermore, no society can be competitive in the medium term unless it is based on social cohesion, and there is more of a tradition of social cohesion in Europe. It is stronger and more solid here.
Lastly, Europe possesses an enormous wealth of cultural diversity and has already demonstrated that when it wants to, it is capable of doing better. Let me give you two very simple examples involving the most modern technologies: Europe is the clear leader in the areas of mobile telephones and digital television, which may well be the most crucial technological factors for access to the Internet in the near future. And we all know that the Internet is today much more than a new network. It is the real network via which a large part of the exchange of knowledge and experience across the world is now taking place.
We must nevertheless acknowledge the fact that Europe has three deficits in its ability to confront this new model: a political deficit, a strategic deficit and a deficit in the coordination of the policies and measures that it has adopted. First, the political deficit: we are not just one country, but fifteen, and political union between us is still at a very early stage. On the other hand, there is no single European public forum and no such a thing as public opinion at European level. There are fifteen national public forums and fifteen sets of public opinion at national level. According to the German philosopher Habermas’s concept of democracy, there is a communication flow between political society and civil society, which is essential to the decision-making process in a modern democracy, and although it may work well in each of our countries, we must admit that it does not yet work well in the EU as a whole. Our political deficit is not just a deficit in the way our institutions are organised, it goes deeper, and concerns the very sociological make-up of our societies.
As a result, there is an even greater need for a strong political will to build European political union. As a result we must, more than ever, have the will to fight the re-emergence of the chauvinist tendencies which have so often threatened to resurface in the EU institutions since the end of the cold war. I think that the next Intergovernmental Conference will be a critical moment for the various countries to send a clear message that they do not wish to gain power at the expense of the others, but all want to contribute to strengthening Europe’s political union. It is in preparation for this debate, and to follow this course, that the Portuguese Presidency is currently engaged in preparing the work of the IGC. There certainly is a political deficit, and this will be the key issue at the Lisbon Summit."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples