Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-17-Speech-3-038"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000517.2.3-038"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, firstly I would like to thank the rapporteur and the committee for their magnificent work, and all the speakers in today’s debate for the additional ideas they have contributed, which will no doubt be useful to the Commission and the debate in the Council of Ministers.
I would like to raise a point here which seems to me to be essential. In my opinion, there is no contradiction between greater investment, greater public investment, and the Stability Pact. On the contrary, I believe that since the Stability Pact has allowed for the rationalisation of public finances, it will bring greater public investment in the future. I agree with the view that, in these new circumstances, an improvement in the quality of public finances must involve greater public investment. This is a point which the Commission has highlighted in the different stability and convergence programmes and, clearly, it is a point which we must continue to stress.
Some speakers have also mentioned the importance of research and development and the new economy. This is one of the key elements of the broad guidelines, but I would like to remind you – as I always do – that the main point of the introduction of the new economy is to improve productivity, which is the element which is most likely to bring future growth.
I would like to make an additional comment on two points. Firstly, with regard to the interinstitutional agreement, which has been of concern to the Commission, and secondly, the problems of greater coordination in the face of greater subsidiarity.
With regard to the interinstitutional agreement, this is clearly one of Parliament’s recurrent demands. It is also true that its implementation raises legal problems, as well as problems relating to the status of its participants, but I believe that, in any event, we should be satisfied with the progress made this year. I promised you some months ago, when we discussed this issue in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, that the Commission would try to make the greatest possible progress with regard to its cooperation with Parliament. It does not take the form of an interinstitutional agreement, but the presentation of the document on the results of the broad guidelines for economic policies, which will permit a prior debate in Parliament, seems to me to be a positive thing. There are other more profound elements, such as the introduction of the idea of broader economic discussions, with the participation of Parliament, and the famous
which will, in the future, offer us new opportunities and ideas for our political debate.
In my opinion, the Portuguese Presidency’s idea – which we support – of also establishing a debate with Parliament on these issues, not at an institutional level as suggested by Parliament, but of a different nature, is also clearly positive. I believe that this is a good direction to take, and we must continue to cooperate in this regard in the future.
Lastly, I would like to point out that something has been raised which may seem contradictory between those who argue for greater coordination of economic policies and those who argue for greater subsidiarity in the way these policies are applied.
As you all know, economic policies are the responsibility of the Member States and, in this respect, subsidiarity is guaranteed. In my opinion, the greatest possible coordination is essential. I therefore argue that we should move ahead with the coordination of economic policies, making reference to the Member States’ obligations. I realise that for some of you this may seem like interference by the Commission in the responsibilities of the Member States, but that is what is laid down in the Treaty, in the legislation which we have created for ourselves, and that is the Commission’s mandate: to make specific recommendations.
I said that coordination is necessary, but I do not believe that this has to be incompatible with subsidiarity. Greater coordination and greater definition of global policies does not exclude, however, the existence of an additional margin for action on the part of the Member States.
I would like to end my intervention by thanking you all for your contributions, your participation in the debate and for your majority support for the document presented.
Today, together with the broad guidelines for economic policies, other issues have been raised, particularly in relation to the euro.
When speaking of the euro, I would point out two things: firstly, I would ask that the problem be looked at in its entirety, not simply the exchange rate problem. Secondly, I would point out that the Commission’s position remains the same; that is to say, clear growth and price stability must logically lead to an improvement in the euro. This is not an issue we can go into today, but I wanted to make those points.
Today, we are discussing in particular the broad guidelines for economic policies. The new broad guidelines differ from previous ones in that they partially incorporate Lisbon. It has been said that they do not incorporate it fully. This is true in the sense that Lisbon is too close to the presentation of the broad guidelines and the bulk of the work had been done previously. Nevertheless, I believe that there were elements prior to Lisbon which anticipated or foresaw what was going to happen there and which have been incorporated into the broad guidelines.
Many of you have referred to the idea of full employment as a fundamental element. Full employment, according to the Commission’s initial document – which formed the basis of the Lisbon decision – is something which can be achieved as long as the proposed policies are implemented. The problem of full employment is patently one of our primary concerns. We can put a figure on both our employment objectives as well as on what we take the expression “full employment” to mean, as some of you have suggested. It all depends on what we consider the objectives to be. It is absolutely essential, in speaking of these objectives, that we know whether they are political objectives or whether they represent the possibility of achieving certain economic results, as a consequence of the policies we implement.
In any event, I would say to those who are concerned about this issue that the quantitative and qualitative assessment of full employment will become more efficient when we implement the indicators relating to the different policies.
Some speakers have shown a degree of concern about the Commission’s habitual proposals on the flexibility of the labour market. In our view, this flexibility will lead to a better balance in supply and demand in the labour market. It will therefore lead to more employment, but also – as we have always argued – greater quality of employment. This is something we have regularly stressed. The flexibility of the labour market involves many other things: we can talk about regulating working time, but also the removal of all the obstacles which currently stand in the way of employment, such as tax-related issues.
A major point of concern throughout this debate has been the development of investment. The central element of these broad guidelines for economic policies is trying to increase the European Union’s potential for growth. If we are not capable of doing so, it is blatantly obvious that the current positive growth forecasts of over 3% will only last a relatively short amount of time and this trend will not be allowed to continue.
That is why public and private investment are absolutely essential. Since 1997, investment has been increasing progressively. By 2001, public and private investment should reach 21% of GDP and, in 2004, it should reach 23%, which would bring us very close to that objective of 24%, which was mentioned in the Commission’s White Paper on Growth, Employment and Competitiveness."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"entretiens économiques"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples