Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-13-Speech-2-020"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010213.2.2-020"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Commission President, in my view, the Commission’s work programme for 2001 is open to question in several respects, beginning with the role of the European Union in Europe and throughout the world. Negotiations with the candidate countries will proceed following the “road map” proposed by the Commission, in the words of the Commission document, which mentions, I quote, “18 additional chapters” which can be “brought to a close” this year. How, on the basis of such abstract and indeed bureaucratic utterances is it possible to get any grip on the problems to be solved, the contradictions to be overcome and hence the political decisions which must be taken?
Moreover, I consider the idea of “policy towards neighbouring countries” to be a great oversimplification. This term is used to describe EU strategy in the Balkans, its relations with Russia and the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, all of which is covered in just seven lines of text. Some policies undertaken by the European Union in these areas have indeed been criticised, as we saw only last week on the part of the second Euro-Mediterranean Forum. What conclusions do you draw from such assessments?
What indeed remains of the EU’s development policy? For the very poorest countries, aside from the trade measure you have just mentioned, you have created the Europe Aid Cooperation Office, on the model of US Aid, and have, for the most part, replaced development with aid. For the other countries, you have traded in the Lomé-style philosophy for a WTO-style logic. What has become of Europe’s ambition for the South of Europe?
The second major priority I wish to ask you about is the new economic and social agenda. The Commission must prepare the ground for the decisions to be taken in this context on the basis of a range of criteria dubbed “structural indicators”. In these indicators, what allowance is made for social concerns and all that the United Nations Development Programme most sensibly terms “indicators of human development”? You do not, for example, propose even the slightest social consideration in the Commission’s approval of merger plans between major groups. Why not? What do you plan to do in future to prevent a proliferation of cases like the Michelin, Danone, Alstom, Valeo, Aventis and other scandals, where redundancy plans are announced alongside excellent financial results? Why are you postponing the revision of the directive on a European works council, etc., until next year?
That is the context in which you announce a White Paper on governance incorporating a form of partnership with civil society. Returning from the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, I should wholeheartedly approve this, yet I must refrain, for its almost libertarian-looking political approach is a front for all sorts of economic tendencies that are traditionally liberal in essence. In order, however, to overcome the present crisis of confidence felt by the citizens of Europe with regard to the European Union, we must, I believe, play fair right down the line with the citizens themselves, their elected representatives, their trade unions and their associations, in other words, before taking decisions we should agree to expose the options to the light of day, enable transparent pluralist assessment of the effects of these decisions once implemented and we should dare, if necessary, to change our heading if, perchance, society’s priorities happen to upset the agenda of the Community’s elected officials.
What steps, Mr Prodi, would you be willing to take along this road in 2001?"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples