Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-14-Speech-3-223"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010214.6.3-223"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, first of all I should like to thank the rapporteurs and the many speakers for their contributions to the debate. I shall try to make a few comments. The debate has been full of ideas and very varied, and a number of aspects have been aired.
For its part, sustainable development will be the goal in Gothenburg; for that reason there is only one clear reference to it in the current report, when it indicates that the economic and social dimensions of Lisbon will have to be completed by integrating the environmental dimension, which will contribute to a European Union strategy for sustainable development. This, then, will be an open possibility after Gothenburg and will certainly figure in future debates.
A different problem is that of enlargement, which is also clearly referred to: the European Union economy must not only take this essential element into account, but our whole design must also be based on the consideration that the Union will enlarge in a relatively short time. The European Union must take this element as a point of reference, but the applicant countries should also involve themselves in the Lisbon strategy by adopting its objectives as far as possible. This text, practically in the same words I have just used, is included in our synthesis report.
In speaking of Lisbon we are also speaking of the new method of coordination, the method of open coordination. It is true that this is an interesting method, which makes it possible to identify good practices and gradually develop a joint focus on topics of interest; the method, however, should not replace existing Community instruments of a regulatory or quasi-regulatory nature, or the guidelines that already exist in areas such as economic policy or employment.
One point I should like to highlight is that of structural reforms. We certainly included some specific references to structural reforms. We consider that these have a highly diverse content, and among them is the concept of liberalising our economies. This should certainly make us more competitive and will benefit users and make it possible to improve the quality of services of general interest. But it is clear that a liberalisation process will only be efficient and not cause problems if it is carried out in a legal framework with adequate control as regards regulation. We must not think of liberalisation processes that do not fit into a global framework. This regulatory process will doubtless be a fundamental topic in forthcoming debates, and the references to public interest services that have been made this afternoon come into this framework
Another point I found interesting in today’s debate is the extent to which an excess of bureaucratic posts is having a negative impact on the European development process. I shall just say that this is a point which the Commission is concerned about; at times we have even worked on an indicator for bureaucratic posts. It is obviously a difficult subject and it is being piloted by Eurostat, where a working party intends to define elements of precisely this nature which will provide us with more detail as to whether the concerns of a part of our society about the excess of bureaucratic posts reflects the reality of the situation or not.
Coming to the end of my comments now, I must say that at the moment, it may be worth stressing that the synthesis report process is a global process that requires coherence between macroeconomic stability, a subject we consider fundamental, employment, reforms and social cohesion. Within this concept of social cohesion, we must take a broad approach and keep a broad outlook; it must not confine itself exclusively to individual topics but must also address regional topics, as some of you have proposed.
It is easy to highlight the progress that has been made in general terms, but it is rather more complex to point out how these advances in each of our countries, or in each of our regions, can be compared with the others.
In any case, and I think this point is fundamental, the reforms we are putting into motion will make sense insofar as we are able to increase economic productivity and efficiency. Introducing elements of the new economy in the European Union will be the key to our future development. Growth yes, growth with social cohesion, growth that will enable us to face the future in terms of technological challenge; in the end, these are the Lisbon goals and these are the goals we have tried to include in our report.
Many thanks for your contributions and your participation in this debate. We shall try to take into consideration all those elements that have arisen today, which will certainly be useful for our debate in Stockholm.
First, I should stress a point that I think is fundamental, which is that Lisbon has not, of course, changed its goals, i.e., full employment and the modernisation of our society, not forgetting respect for our social system and strong cohesion. When we analyse the employment figures, it is quite clear what results have been achieved. We can mention public investment, as some of you have done. But for us the important thing is the global strategy. When we analyse the global strategy – and this is the content of the synthesis report – the emphasis is on the need to make progress in the various areas simultaneously in order to achieve the goals we set in Lisbon. For instance, the broad economic policy guidelines for 2000 are already making substantial changes to their historical structure in order to include in the various policies those measures arising out of the Lisbon strategy.
Clearly, Lisbon is based on the idea, which all or most of you have highlighted, of a society with a dynamic and cohesive economy as I have just mentioned. This means advances in innovation, education, training, liberalisation, and also adequate regulation, and of course the whole system of social protection. Neither these instruments nor these policies can exist by themselves; they are all linked together. It is not a matter of balance between the various policies: it is more a synergy between different policies, which in the end should enable us to achieve the desired results.
If we analyse the report, it is clearly demonstrated that we have advanced since then. I do not think we should be as negative as some of you have been, saying, “Nothing has been done.” I think a lot has been done, in terms of liberalisation or in terms of economic results. It is also true that not many other things have been done, and therefore in our report we define certain priorities that we consider fundamental for the immediate future.
There is one point I think is of interest, which was raised throughout the debate, especially in the first part this morning. It is the role of indicators with regard to the goals we are seeking. It is true that indicators should not be seen as some kind of inventory, of position-taking on specific policies. It is true that indicators are not goals in themselves, but are tools that should enable us to make progress and interpret reality more globally and accurately. Contrary to what some of you have said, it is important to have indicators what in themselves tell us the reality of our situation. There is no doubt at all that comparison with other models is useful. What doubt is there that comparing certain rates of technological penetration in the European Union and the United States, for instance, will give us a measure of where we are with regard to the most advanced country in these matters? Making a partial comparison – only on certain things and not on the whole model – between the two economies may give rise to interpretations that are not always correct. In any case, when we are talking of comparative indicators there is always a difficulty, which is that we often do not have sufficiently homogeneous indicators for the realities we are comparing to be revealed through these figures.
Throughout the morning you also debated whether the number of indicators was excessive. It is true that cutting the number of indicators would make the report more visible; in terms of public opinion it would make it possible to send out clearer and more direct messages. But it is also true that a smaller number of indicators would make it much more difficult to interpret the reality we are trying to understand.
I think that having 28 indicators classified under the four basic Lisbon goals is the least number required to provide a good understanding of where we are at this moment. As I said earlier, however, we designed the indicators as a working tool. This does not necessarily have to be a permanent tool, since real life and a better understanding of it will make us revise the indicators continuously, possibly changing some of them during this process which we began in Lisbon.
A subject I think is of interest, which some of you have raised, is to what extent we can achieve greater participation by Parliament in all this debate through an institutional agreement. I believe that right now we already have enough instruments, at least for relations between the Commission and Parliament, to be able to make progress in our joint work. In any case, the institutional agreement should also include the Council. I should like to stress one point: participation by both Parliament and public opinion in the debate on Europe is always open. The Commission has taken the initiative, for instance, with the economic interviews held once a year, the basic aim of which is to analyse the European economic situation specifically in this global world and in comparison with the context in those countries that serve as a reference for our situation. This subject is always open to Parliament, and naturally we hope you will cooperate this year as you have in the past.
Another point I also find of interest is the scope of the synthesis report. I have seen at least two references that seem to be of interest: Why do we not speak of sustainable development? What is happening with the enlargement of the European Union? Would it not be appropriate to mention both subjects?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples