Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-15-Speech-4-031"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030515.1.4-031"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, I would like to thank all those who have spoken in this debate. Unfortunately, time does not allow me to deal in detail with all the points raised. I will however make a few remarks I think are relevant.
It goes without saying that the economic policy guidelines do not run counter to what was agreed at Lisbon. Rather, they are one of the many instruments allowing us to implement the Lisbon process.
I am surprised at the emphasis on drawing up new action plans and new lists of things to be done. I am also surprised at the many references to the need to be better informed about what is happening. I assume the House is aware that the Commission’s summary report on the implementation of the Lisbon strategy was published in January. This report contains all the necessary information on the progress made by each of the Member States in implementing Lisbon. You will even find lists and tables showing which countries performed best and which did worst. In addition, you will find details of which three countries performed best or worst on each of the objectives. All the information is therefore available. Furthermore, a report on implementation of the broad economic guidelines is drawn up annually and indicates clearly where the shortcomings are.
Our main problem does not therefore involve understanding the situation we are in, but in trying to change it. By virtue of our system, this falls within the competence of the Member States. Our present system is based on peer pressure, as I stated earlier. This is obviously a crucial point.
A number of honourable Members mentioned the open method of coordination. In my view, this should only be applied in cases where the Treaty does not provide for a specific method. It is therefore a useful method, but one to be used sparingly and by agreement.
I am sorry time does not permit me to go into further detail. I would however like to take this opportunity of thanking you all for your contributions to this morning’s debate.
Firstly, I am grateful to the House for its cooperation. I appreciate the problems it is up against. I too would have welcomed a joint debate on the broad economic guidelines and the employment guidelines today. Sadly, one was not possible. I appreciate how little time Parliament has available. The Council and the Commission are under similar constraints. It should be borne in mind that the Commission’s proposals need to be based on decisions taken at the Spring European Council. It is therefore very difficult to start on this kind of work before April.
Secondly, today’s debate is essentially about whether the economic policy decided on is right for the current situation, or whether this situation should lead us to change our economic policy. It appears that two issues have become confused in the course of the debate, namely economic policy and the instruments of economic policy. In my view, a study of the operation of macroeconomic policy during this period suggests it is helping to handle the crisis. Monetary policy has changed, obviously. Also, fiscal policy is now markedly more expansive than before as a function of the limits agreed under the Stability and Growth Pact. I shall return to this point later.
I do believe, however, that the current situation should not lead us to back pedal regarding structural reform. After all, structural reform is about modernising our economies.
It has been suggested that the Stability and Growth Pact is acting as a brake on the economy at present, and that it is a problem. I would argue that the Stability Pact has been presented in too simplistic a way, as a rigid tool that does not allow any room for manoeuvre. This is not the case. A further mistaken assumption was made, namely that discretionary fiscal policies are right for any economic situation. I think economic theory says otherwise and holds that such policies are only appropriate in very specific circumstances.
I believe it is worth thinking carefully about what I consider a crucial issue. It appears that the very countries experiencing the greatest difficulties are precisely those that currently have the greatest deficit. One might wonder whether the deficit caused the poor economic situation or whether it was the other way around. I feel we need to look elsewhere in search of a solution. Recent developments in Japan and the internal impact of measures taken by the present Administration in the United States are worth considering.
I remain convinced that the Stability and Growth Pact is the best instrument at our disposal. It provides for an appropriate and flexible fiscal policy. This policy is created automatically, insofar as the automatic stabilisers are allowed to operate. Impulsive action is controlled and the potentially negative consequences prevented.
I believe that the vision of our economic policy presented has, in some cases, tended to be anecdotal. It focused on detail and veered towards caricature. This is most certainly not a policy based more or less exclusively on wage restrictions. Nothing could be further from reality. Wages are always set in relation to productivity. This is not a policy focusing solely on employment either.
The policy consists of three key instruments I referred to earlier. These are sound macroeconomic policies, structural reforms together and medium and long term economic, social and environmental sustainability. We do not have flexibility in the labour market exclusively in mind, not even when referring to structural employment policies. What we are about is the development of the population, the rate of employment and, of course, labour markets adjusted to the new situation."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples