Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-02-12-Speech-3-055"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-02-12"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Preparation for the 2003 Spring summit (Brussels, 21-22 March 2003) (continuation)2
dcterms:Language	"el"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030212.3.3-055"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-02-12-Speech-3-0562
lpv:speaker	lp:Mihail Papayannakis2
lpv:spokenAs	chair; Delegation to the EU-Hungary Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-06--2004-04-30)3 member_of_the_bureau; EUL/NGL (1999-10-13--2004-07-19)3 member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (2002-02-06--2004-04-30)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Synaspismos tis Aristeras kai tis Proodou (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; PETI (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; AFCO (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Cyprus Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-04-30)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, it is, I think, obvious – and here I disagree with many of my honourable friends – that, if nothing else, the Lisbon process, the Lisbon strategy, is not a total failure. At worst, it has not made any headway. Clearly, it is developing and progressing too slowly. The recession which has hit the economy, especially the sectors of the new economy on which we have – to put it one way – somewhat over-optimistically pinned our hopes for the Lisbon strategy, cannot be left out of the equation. As far as sustainable development is concerned, there has been a huge delay. We should already be fully monitoring and developing the outcomes of Johannesburg. I think that both the word and the town have been forgotten. Then there is the letter from the three leaders, which a previous speaker quite rightly referred to and which really does upset the balance which the Lisbon strategy tries to strike. This letter calls for reform, but reform in the wrong direction. The letter ditches the term full employment and talks of high levels of employment. It says – and this is outrageous, Mr President-in-Office and I should like you to respond to this – that we need to prevent new restrictions on companies and that, whenever the Commission proposes new policies, we need to listen to the opinion of companies and the business world first. I have nothing against consultation, but what will you do about the legislation on chemicals? What will you do about the new legislation on environmental responsibility? In one sense, these laws are restrictions which come within the context of sustainable development and so on. Will they too be left out of the equation? I think an answer is required. If not now, then during the discussions at summit level. In all events, a clear answer is required. Obviously the war, or rather, let us not deceive ourselves, the invasion of Iraq may exacerbate all this and does, of course, make it hard to get down to brass tacks and discuss the follow-on strategy for Lisbon. However, a number of questions need answering, Mr President. Have you thought about re-tabling a general reduction in working times in order to create more jobs? About funding the development of the so-called third sector? About updating the ideas in the White Paper, which was when we last thought about this in a specific, integrated manner in the European Union, for example on trans-European networks and tax changes, in order to shift taxes off employment and on to the use of natural resources. Have you thought about re-tabling all this in the light of the failures so far? Or has all this now been forgotten?"@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph