Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-04-Speech-3-042"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010404.2.3-042"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, let me briefly comment on what has been said. Firstly, I would like to thank you for the support you have expressed for the Swedish Presidency and the work which we are carrying out together with yourselves and, naturally, with the Commission, and which gave us a very good basis to work on ahead of the Stockholm Summit. This means that we were well-placed to achieve success. I will comment on the points you raised from two perspectives. I want to talk firstly about foreign relations and secondly about the Lisbon Process, as my initial report was primarily structured in that way.
Mr President, thank you once more for your many constructive contributions and points of view. I would also like to thank the Commission for working so well with us in the run-up to the Stockholm Summit. I look forward to meeting Parliament again following the Gothenburg Summit, where I hope we will be able to say that we have taken a step forward on enlargement, even though a great deal of work will remain to be done on that point.
With regard to foreign relations, I am happy that so many people here have recognised that there is an aim on the part of the presidency to get the Union’s Member States to really work together when they
act together. This is based on consensus, unanimity. We are aware that not all of us within the Union agree on every issue, but on this issue we
agreed. When we are able to put forward common principles, we must naturally also act together.
Naturally we attracted a great deal of attention in the media when we received President Putin as a guest. I would not be surprised to see even greater attention from the media when we receive President Bush, but those who believe that in receiving these visitors we are seeking media attention are naturally mistaken about the fundamental work of the Union. We have an obligation, we have a right, to
the initiative in our relations both with the United States and Russia. Relations must be deepened and developed, and dialogue must be open. It must be honest and it must be critical, but we must naturally, on the basis of our size and our strength, carry out this dialogue with very, very great self-confidence. This is what this is about. I am pleased that you realise that, during the Swedish Presidency, we are seeking to highlight joint action in foreign affairs also within the European Union and within the framework of the Council. This is far from unimportant.
Now, a few words on the Lisbon Process. Let me comment on the discussion on deregulation and liberalisation.
I am the Prime Minister of a country which has opened up many markets, which has liberalised and deregulated. I primarily see positive effects of this, but I would be a very poor politician if I did not also recognise the difficulties in carrying out such a process. This is a very large and fundamental reorganisation. It is
from
simple. I have very great respect for the colleagues who, in their
respective countries, are to begin this process in a number of central areas and deal with the political debate which many of us have already had in our countries. It is no easy debate. I believe that it would be an incredibly great mistake to force through decisions and so create a situation where these fundamental changes in many countries would
lead to extremely strong national opposition. Therefore, I believe that the method we are using in the Lisbon Process is superior for this type of fundamental change in financial and political conditions. I say this as a response to Mr Poettering of the Conservative Group, as I can see how the process will develop over time. The process is heading in the right direction, and we are implementing it in such a way that we have the support of national political opinion in each country. We can never ignore this.
I also wish to state that I myself do not wish to see deregulation and liberalisation unless the advantages created and the increased growth achieved are used to give ordinary people the chance to live better and richer lives. We constantly have to maintain this balance. Here I am talking to those who said that we have not produced any initiatives to combat unemployment. Our work in this respect is characterised by the fact that unemployment is best combated by economic growth and economic development. Without increased production, we will have no opportunities to successfully combat unemployment. We can create various programmes, reduce working hours, carry out a large number of different initiatives – but for those people who are most hard pressed, this will always be a defensive programme. If we are to be proactive in addressing unemployment, we must do so by increasing the cake by developing the economy. This is why we have drawn up guidelines in Stockholm.
Several speakers have mentioned enlargement of the Union. We are currently negotiating intensively with the active participation of the Commission. As far as I can judge, the negotiations are successful, but they are not easy. My task as President-in-Office of the Council is to ensure that the Union’s regulations are highlighted in the negotiations and that we run the negotiations so as to achieve a change in legislation, markets and political systems in the countries now seeking to join the Union. This change must make their accession as painless and successful as possible. These negotiations are difficult and we are in the middle of them. I am hopeful that, in the negotiations in the spring during the Swedish Presidency, we shall achieve success that we will be able to describe as a breakthrough.
Regarding openness, the presidency and Parliament are in alliance. I hope that we succeed. I myself would agree with the criticism which Bertel Haarder makes of the situation. These are not reasonable conditions for political work, and we have to create greater openness if our citizens are also to have a greater chance of becoming directly involved in what forms the basis of the political decisions.
I would also like to discuss the prior conditions for Sweden, as a small country, being able to contribute to the issue of EMU and other issues: but I do not intend to take up your time over this. I will be happy to talk about this question again in a bilateral context. What is important for us now is to jointly ensure that the Union’s economy is in as good a condition as possible on the day, in almost a year’s time, when the single European currency is introduced. We all have an interest in this, whether we are participating in the currency union from the start or whether we will be joining later. Success, which is what we are seeking, is to the advantage of the entire European economy."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"are able to"1
"take"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples