Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-01-16-Speech-3-080"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020116.6.3-080"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, Parliament is engaged in strenuous discussions with the Commission concerning new ways of governing - ‘European governance’. As parliamentarians we have raised objections to several proposals in the interests of effective and lively parliamentary government, but we have also found agreement with the Commission on a number of things. Something we would both like, Mr President-in-Office, but which the Council has to date refused, is an interinstitutional working party in which we — Parliament, Commission and Council together — could discuss the issues surrounding the new way of governing. I would ask you, Mr President-in-Office, to take care that the Council agrees to this way of proceeding together.
Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, we are of the opinion that we should in any case be treated equally with the Council, including on the issue of secondary legislation. It is our opinion that we too should have a call back position should the secondary legislation not work well. We take the view, moreover, that framework directives should have a sort of ‘sunset clause’, a time limit.
We agree with the Commission in any case that lawmaking and the decision-making process in the European Union should again and again have their effectiveness monitored. This also applies to the area of liberalisation, which we sometimes doubt is being carried out with a careful eye and social awareness. Questions to be considered in this area include, for example, whether liberalisation always leads to lower prices in the long term, whether it always results in competition or sometimes also to monopolies and oligopolies, the only difference being that this time they are across Europe.
What are the chances under liberalisation for the small and medium-sized enterprises about which we are all concerned, especially in the smaller sectors? How about the issue of concentration, especially in the media? Italy has already been mentioned today. We often turn a blind eye to this. What is the net effect on employment and wages?
I mention these things not because either I or my group are opposed to liberalisation. We mention these things because we want to carry out liberalisation in the interests of our citizens, with a careful eye and social awareness.
It may be for this reason, Mr President of the Commission and Mr President-in-Office, that some governments are sceptical about liberalisation and slow to implement it, because they feel that it does not always exactly lead to the good objective that is in mind, and because they feel that their own people do not always perceive the advantages to be found in the detail of this liberalisation strategy.
So I beg to ask you to consider, within the framework of the Barcelona and Lisbon processes, how liberalisation, which you in your programme want to push and press ahead with, can come about in our people's interest, taking the social dimensions into account as well. The continuation of an arbitrary liberalisation strategy cannot be what it is all about.
Whilst Mr Berlusconi thinks we should strengthen Europe by being more American than the Americans, I do believe we should take our own European road to liberalisation."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples