Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-11-14-Speech-3-011"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071114.2.3-011"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the title of this debate reflects the fact that the European Parliament is to discuss with the Council and the Commission the role that Europe – the European institutions and the EU Member States – intends to play in dealing with the opportunities and risks of globalisation. We must therefore make it clear – as indeed today’s debate will do – that the consequences of globalisation can be seen in different ways and can be addressed through various competing methods.
In conclusion, Mr President – Hans-Gert – ladies and gentlemen, let me say that the issue we are discussing today, namely how we should line up to face the challenge of globalisation and what influence Europe, by which I mean institutionalised Europe – you in the Commission and we in Parliament – can actually wield in pursuit of these ambitious goals, is also the measure by which the voters will judge us. If we keep confining ourselves to general debates where we describe exactly what we want but they are not followed up with concrete legislative measures here and in the Member States, the whole exercise will be pointless. That is why we expect that what we describe here will also be reflected in our joint resolution and converted into firm policy.
The negotiations on the resolution to be adopted today have shown that there is a profound difference, in many areas a gulf, between the conceptions on the right of this House and what we in the Socialist Group want. What we say in this debate will therefore define the parameters we apply when assessing the roles the institutions should play, especially the Commission. Having listened to you very attentively, Mr President of the Commission, and to Mr Daul, I would say there is some common ground, but there are also some stark differences.
Anyone who stands for election to the office of President of the Commission, now or in the future, will be measured by our group on the basis of certain key criteria, relating in particular to his or her perception of the Commission’s role in the globalised economy. Macroeconomic policy coordination, to use the jargon, or what we might also call common economic and fiscal policy, must be guided by the principles of social policy. Economic progress in Europe must result in greater social stability. The EU must ensure that global economic progress leads to greater equality of rights and opportunities in the world. That, too, is social policy. Human welfare at home and abroad is our common yardstick.
Economic progress is the prerequisite for social security – not the other way round, as we have heard it suggested in a few speeches in this House. The idea that less social security in Europe should be the source of economic progress is an absolute aberration. Anyone who believes the EU can be used to erode achievements in the field of social policy behind the smokescreen of globalisation, as it were, is mistaken. Deregulated markets leading to maximised profits and lower social standards is perhaps the ideal in the minds of the right in this House. It is not ours. What we are saying is that the secret of Europe’s success has been social progress and economic progress, which are two sides of the same coin. Nothing has changed in that respect as far as we are concerned.
That was an interesting interjection from Mr Daul. For those who did not hear it, he said, ‘The economy first!’ No! Economic growth and social welfare must go hand in hand – that is the crucial point, and it highlights the error of right-wing politics in Europe. Let us get one thing clear: the overwhelming majority of the governments in the Council are centre-right governments, and the Commission, of course, is no El Dorado of Socialism. You, Mr Barroso, are a politician from the centre-right, as are most of your Commissioners. We are therefore keeping a close eye on the actions of the Commission in order to gauge the credibility of your statements.
Of course we need research, innovation and education, and of course we need the internal market to develop in a way that protects the environment and stabilises society’s resources. We most certainly do! But we also need the Commission to present the appropriate proposals for directives. Then we shall need the corresponding legislative initiatives to consolidate the process. There are some good points, and we support them, but there are also quite a few that we need to probe thoroughly.
We also need effective administration. I do not know whether that should be called better Lisbon governance, as it is referred to in the headings of EU documents. I do not know whether the ordinary man or woman in the street understands what we mean by that. And when you speak of simplifying administration and enlist the former Minister-President of Bavaria to lead that effort, all I can say is three cheers and the best of luck!
The one thing that we most certainly need – and on this we agree wholeheartedly with you, Mr President of the Commission – is a set of rules to tame this Wild-West capitalism that prevails in the financial markets and, yes, threatens entire national economies. So let us make a start with these rules in Europe. To spell out what is needed, let me say that we expect the international financial capitalists to be subject to supervision, their operations to be transparent and, of course, their power to be curtailed, and your pursuit of these aims will have our support. That is one of the keys to social progress in Europe."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples