Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-25-Speech-3-047"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040225.5.3-047"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioners, we are today taking part in what has become almost an annual ritual, namely the debate on the state of the Lisbon strategy in the run up to the Spring Summit. It is useful to go back to basic principles. These principles include a renewed European social model, based on common shared values, with a sustainable strategy for solidarity and economic and social development. This catalogue of good intentions does need to be given tangible form, however. I believe the saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions is common to all our languages. Proclaiming and restating these good intentions year after year is not enough. What is required instead is a critical analysis of how the Lisbon strategy is being implemented. This has been clearly stated today, notably by the Commission.
In this election year I should like to highlight certain issues of particular concern. It is all well and good to refer to the internal market and financial services. It should also be borne in mind, however, that the impasse concerning taxation of income from capital and unacceptable monopoly situations needs to be overcome. It is all well and good to refer to the development of services, but it is also necessary to respond to the concerns regarding ever-increasing relocation and the need for an industrial strategy for Europe. We must therefore prove that we are capable of working together to develop our approach to implementing the Lisbon Agenda.
Mr President, I hope you will allow me to refer to current developments. Firstly, my group and Parliament as a whole feel that the entry into force of economic and monetary union called for strengthening economic governance. I believe that was the majority view enshrined in our stance on the Convention. The Commissioner mentioned this. One of the meetings of our leaders has attracted special media attention. I refer to the meeting held in Berlin, where the creation of the post of Super-Commissioner for economic affairs was proposed. This is certainly an important issue. It implies agreement to apply the Community method. This is absolutely crucial. It also implies agreeing to what the governments were opposed to at the Convention. Opinions have changed. It is now deemed necessary to strengthen economic union. This can be translated into a corrective approach. Readiness to correct is a sign of wisdom. There is a willingness to amend the draft constitution in this regard. I do not believe the House would have difficulty in offering clear support to such an approach. After all, it does not make sense to discuss the creation of the post of Foreign Minister and not to have an equivalent post for economic affairs. I am sure Commissioner Solbes will be happy to support this proposal, or even to defend it before the Commission.
Another important aspect is involved. Discussion of reform should not be restricted solely to discussion about dismantling social gains and the welfare state. The Irish, Dutch, Danish and Swedish models prove conclusively that it is possible to be highly competitive, have an efficient economy whilst enjoying a high level of protection. Reform must therefore be based on these models. The reform process is not incompatible with retaining the principles that made Europe great.
I should like to make a further important point, Mr President. The Commissioner mentioned it in passing. I refer to setting the forthcoming financial perspective. The Irish Presidency will be responsible for launching that debate too. It is a most important issue, because it so happens that further to that Berlin Summit and to a certain letter, there is talk of wanting to undertake far more activity with far fewer resources. I have in mind for example the Lisbon strategy and enlargement. It is all becoming an issue of blind faith. It does not make sense simply to hope for miracles. Applying sensible economic principles most certainly does make sense, however. Consequently, in order to discharge its responsibility, the Commission made a proposal presented to the House by Commissioner Barnier. The 1.24% of GDP proposed may seem too tight, but we believe it is the minimum worth considering. In France, my home country, and elsewhere in the European Union researchers are out on the streets demonstrating. I repeat, the researchers are out on the streets, not just the workers. It is simply not possible to call for more research and then drastically cut resources.
It is therefore essential to give full support to the plan proposed by Commissioner Reding and developed by Commissioner Busquin.
As I conclude, Mr President, I should like to mention three more issues. Firstly, we continue to have every confidence in the Irish Presidency and trust that in March it will be able to present a viable proposal aimed at moving the Constitution forward. Secondly, we believe the agreement reached in Cyprus must be supported. In our view, it is very important for the future of the Union. Lastly, on the occasion of the visit of an Iranian Nobel Prize winner to this House, I would like to say that I believe the Union must stand firm in its support of democracy in Iran. It must also continue to express its criticism of the conduct of elections in that country."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples