Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-15-Speech-2-028"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010515.2.2-028"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I would firstly like to thank the rapporteur, Mr von Wogau, and all the speakers for their comments and contributions.
Let us now deal with the fundamental issues. First, however, I would like to make a quick comment about the coordination of economic policies.
Mr Gasòliba i Böhm and Mrs Berès have both referred to this, and so have certain other speakers, especially Mrs Doyle. We believe that the coordination of economic policies must fundamentally be carried out by means of the broad economic policy guidelines and the key document for coordination. It is true that this document must take account of the Stability Pact, but in no way can this be considered to be the only factor that can ensure that the coordination of economic policy moves ahead correctly.
This is the importance of the document we are discussing today.
We must include every factor in the broad guidelines. It is true that the broad economic policy guidelines and coordination will be discussed – coordination will be discussed subsequently in greater depth – and that will give us further opportunities for future corrections. Nevertheless, I would like to stress a point which has led to certain comments from Mrs Berès and Mrs Doyle on the specific problem of Ireland. Firstly, to talk of sanctions in the Irish case – although I realise that the media finds this kind of language attractive – does not correspond to the reality of the situation. The Council, not the Commission, has adopted a decision on a specific recommendation because of incoherence between the accepted budgetary policy and the budgetary policy implemented by a Member State.
The von Wogau report refers to the consideration of the greater or lesser degree of control which a country that is part of the Monetary Union enjoys over the measures it adopts. I believe that an option such as this poses clear risks. Of course, if only the large countries are obliged to comply with the broad economic policy guidelines, then, in the end, our model would become highly contradictory. The very nature of the European model is that all countries, large and small, have the same rights and obligations, and I believe that we have to remain coherent on this general principle.
With regard to the major challenges, our commitment and approach in this case have been clear. We refer to three types of option: firstly, in the short term, to maintain economic expansion; in the medium term, to increase the potential for growth, and, in the long term, to deal with ageing. I will comment briefly on these issues.
With regard to economic expansion, our forecasts are possibly more optimistic than those of others. We are well aware of the reality of the situation in Europe and we believe that the solidity of developments in internal demand enables us to be relatively optimistic. This does not mean that we are not concerned to see the uncertainties arising in other economies and certain recent figures – which you have referred to – relating to the United States economy. These figures must clearly be borne in mind.
In any event, our starting point was a V-shaped recovery of the United States economy
and we hope that that situation will be reached.
The overriding issue is whether the European economic situation, affected by the external situation, can justify a change in the economic policies we have been applying until now. The Commission believes that it cannot.
We believe that the ongoing high growth that we will be seeing in Europe means that we can continue to opt for the fundamental idea of moving ahead with the consolidation of public deficits and the reduction of public debt. I do not agree either with those people who suggest that these factors will not have positive effects in terms of employment: we only have to look at changes in employment in the European Union over recent years to see that this policy has achieved good results, as has a wage policy coherent with growth and inflation over these years. I believe that we have made considerable progress in reducing unemployment in the last two years and we must continue in this direction.
Since 1993, when the broad economic guidelines were initiated, the Commission has always appreciated Parliament’s constant interest in this debate. Parliament has always been fundamental to maintaining the coherence of the Commission’s recommendations, preventing them from being watered down subsequently in the debate in Council.
With regard to our medium-term objective, increasing growth potential, there is no doubt that what we all want, at the end of the day, is to achieve the best results for economic growth in terms of employment and in terms of growth. We also believe, of course, that in this respect it is essential to improve the working capacity and level of activity of our populations, but, to this end, it is imperative that we make progress on structural reforms, both of the markets and of the labour system.
We have not, of course, forgotten something that some of you have mentioned, which is the transition to a knowledge economy and the fundamental need to invest in research and development, both in new technologies and in the public sector. The Commission’s position has always been very clear on this point. We believe that investment in the public sector is adequate and coherent, but it must be compatible with our general budgetary obligations.
Lastly, I would like to refer specifically to the need to pay greater attention to sustainable development and specifically, to the environment. This year’s broad guidelines contain a specific reference to this point and there is no doubt that next year, after the Gothenburg Summit, we will include additional elements in relation to it.
With regard to the final part of the broad economic guidelines, referring to long-term commitments, the Commission still believes that the problem of the ageing population is a key issue which ultimately affects the circumstances of the various Member States in terms of debt and is, therefore, something that we must consider.
We are aware that the problem cannot be resolved simply by reducing public debt and this is a positive step. We believe that we have to do more, both in relation to pension systems and in relation to increasing the level of activity in the various countries. In our opinion, of course, this is not a problem for year-by-year broad guidelines, but rather a medium- and long-term problem. We must also make a specific reference to this issue, however, in the various annual presentations.
These are the points that I wanted to mention today. I would like to thank Parliament and Mr von Wogau for your contribution and I hope that the final result of the broad economic guidelines will be what we all want: greater growth in Europe, greater sustained growth, and furthermore a form of growth that is achieved by means of a plan for the coordination of economic policies, which, of course, respects the capacity for national responsibility of each of us, in accordance with the Treaty.
I am especially grateful for your contribution to the broad guidelines this year. The resolution is very clear, it is practical, it addresses specific aspects and I feel that there is great harmony between the contents of Parliament’s recommendation and the Commission’s proposal, although, as I will point out later, there are also some differences on certain specific points.
As Mr von Wogau has highlighted, this year’s broad guidelines are the last before the introduction of notes and coins. It is also true, however, as Mrs Randzio-Plath was saying, that the broad economic guidelines do not only involve the euro zone: they involve the whole of the European Union and therefore, although certain factors will result from this change, greater attention is given to the countries which have a special involvement with the euro and clearly the eurogroup’s importance here is fundamental. Nevertheless, the guidelines still apply to the Union as a whole.
In the presentation of the Commission’s recommendations on the broad guidelines for 2001, I explained what the general approach for the broad economic guidelines for this year were going to be to the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Nevertheless, since some of these issues have been raised again in today’s debate, I would like to comment on them once again.
Firstly, in my opinion the new broad economic guidelines differ from previous ones in one fundamental way, which is that they respond to what we defined at the Lisbon Summit.
It is true that we could hold a debate on whether or not certain aspects defined at the Lisbon Summit should be more balanced. For example, Mrs Weiler referred to the social aspects, raising the question of whether or not they are sufficiently addressed. I believe that we are dealing with the social aspects insofar as they must be included within the broad economic policy guidelines.
There are, of course, other European Union documents which deal with social aspects in greater detail, but I do not believe that the broad economic policy guidelines should play the role, for example, of the broad guidelines for employment.
It is also the case that this year the new model established at the Lisbon Summit and the debate in the European Council on two questions which are fundamental to the drawing up of the broad economic guidelines have reduced the time available for the creation of this document, and this has also affected the European Parliament. Both Mr von Wogau and the spokesman for the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs complained about the lack of time for a more in-depth debate on the various issues. This is true and we will try to overcome these timetabling difficulties as far as possible, but it will be difficult, given the commitments we have taken on, since all of them restrict the time available for the subsequent debate."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples