Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-04-Speech-3-138"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021204.8.3-138"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, no coordination, no procedure can be effective if there is a lack of political will. This must be our starting point. Some good objectives were set out in Lisbon and Gothenburg, but there is a huge gap between what is said and what is done. The European Union is facing serious economic problems, its growth potential is slowing down, public and private investment is very weak and it is lacking skills. Neither the Stability and Growth Pact nor the monetary policy is dealing with these challenges. They are assigning everything to the Member States, and coordination cycles, which are designed to be the Member States’ area of discipline, cannot work if the Union also fails to adopt and implement common policies. There is no genuine European economic policy due to differences between the Member States. Coordination cycles do not examine economic relationships between countries. And we do not yet have a global approach to the European economy and the eurozone, considered in the context of globalisation. We do not yet have a policy on demand, networks or human capacities. The Union is still an area of regulatory and fiscal competition, where the very notion of social market economy is not accepted and will not be incorporated, in my view, in the future constitution, especially since there is still genuine aversion towards economic affairs.
I shall now turn to institutional procedures. What the Commission is proposing to us is purely technocratic. I am in favour of merging different areas and setting up a cycle. I agree with the principle of streamlining. However, this will not remove the aforementioned political obstacles, hence my suggestions. First of all, the Treaties provide no solid basis for communitarisation of the economic policy. Our priority must therefore be to establish this basis in the Convention. Secondly, no reliable comparative statistical and analytical tool exists, particularly for social cohesion and sustainable development. As a priority, we must therefore provide the Union with investigative and analytical resources which are equal to its statements. Thirdly, the proposed procedures do not yet have any democratic value. We urgently need a broad public deliberation on the situations and options prior to the Commission’s package, as well as a subsequent evaluation, by civil society and the elected representatives, and not only by the Commission. Fourthly, I do not believe that the European Parliament is today still capable of properly debating and of choosing a coherent economic policy. Too many positions held are marked by national interests alone and ideological mindsets. Having said that, Parliament is better placed than the Council and the Commission to deliberate and assess the economic policy. An annual interactive discussion is therefore necessary between national communities and the Community institutions at Parliament’s initiative. Only then will the Commission draft its proposals, only then will the decision be referred back to the Council, but Parliament could then have a power of ratification.
To sum up, without shared political will and a common democratic procedure, the coordination of national policies will fail."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples