Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-11-14-Speech-3-039"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071114.2.3-039"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, over the next three years the Commission intends to present proposals for a realignment of economic, social and environmental policies in the European Union. That is a good thing because, as we all know, there is nothing on the table yet. The October paper, which is the basis of our present discussion, is a brief document. While I must mention in passing that it is always good to present brief papers, this one is also a shallow paper, a thin paper, from which we can learn nothing about the direction this journey is supposed to take.
The Commission must help us by resolving a contradiction. If we take today’s debate as the cover page, the introduction, we are dealing here with enormous challenges: globalisation, climate change, the issue of the international financial markets – the formidable challenges that face us in each of the Member States. If, however, we then follow the discussion further into the realm of practical implications, we are told that there is no need to alter the practical policy guidelines. That is incomprehensible. It is totally incomprehensible because it naturally raises the question of the real nature of this globalisation debate. Is it a pretext for taking no action in terms of the practical implementation of our social, environmental and economic policies, or is it really an opportunity to see the real picture and to provide responses to the urgent questions and needs of people in the countries of the European Union?
Let me raise a few more questions. If our future does indeed lie in an environmental industrialised society, why is it so difficult to speak in the Commission, with the Commission and even in this House about the proper investment policy that is needed if we are to achieve that goal? Why can we not talk about the building-refurbishment programmes and the modern vehicles and transport systems we need to achieve that goal? Why is it almost taboo to discuss a decent investment policy? And why do these things not feature in the Commission’s programme? Why are they not in the Lisbon work programme either? I do hope there are still changes to be made.
When we talk about the knowledge triangle – the need for education, research and innovation – why can we not make the European Youth Pact a practical instrument and guarantee high-quality training for all young people in Europe, so that they can use their specialised knowledge and intelligence in the effort to restructure industrialised society. These are the practical challenges to which we want to respond."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples