Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-06-23-Speech-4-016"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050623.4.4-016"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Mr Barroso, you have, Mr Blair, put your finger on the tragic inability of the EU, as it is now, to meet the expectations of our fellow citizens. You have spoken of change, modernisation and solidarity. Very good. Now let us look at things a little more closely. On three occasions in the space of a month, each time in a very different context, we have had the opportunity to acquaint ourselves with the top priorities of the UK Presidency.
The first time was on 26 May in the form of a succinct and very specific statement by Gordon Brown, Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the House of Commons. I will remind you of four points.
Firstly, I quote, ‘All regulatory proposals must be tested for their impact on competitiveness’. Secondly, an independent business-led advisory group should be set up ‘to give business a central role in the EU rule-making and simplification process’. Thirdly, we will hold a conference in London in July on reducing State aid. Fourthly, we will call for the creation of a barrier-free transatlantic financial market. Dare I say, Prime Minister, that the social courage of these tasks does not exactly leap out at us.
Nevertheless, a few days later, in an interview with the
you said that you wanted to be receptive to what had just been expressed in the French and Dutch referenda. To that end, you called, back then, for reflection on the European social model. It seems to me that we do indeed need such reflection, but we need it so that we can draw lessons from the systematic unpicking to which this infamous model has been subjected practically everywhere over the last few years, in the name of ‘the market above all’. As Commissioner McCreevy so aptly emphasised in the context of the European Policy Forum
on 24 January, and I quote, ‘We should remember that the internal market programme is by far the greatest deregulatory exercise in recent history’. The issue is now to reflect on the European social model, yes, but in what direction?
You seem to be convinced that the
in that regard is your own model, as it limits apparent unemployment to some 5% of the active population. Does this symbolic figure sum up this model? That does not seem to be the case for all the people of the UK. For example, according to Mr John Monks, General Secretary of the ETUC, who is a friend of yours, the Anglo-Saxon model is no more popular with the UK electorate than elsewhere in Europe. I believe that many labour representatives in the United Kingdom want far-reaching changes. Why are you ignoring them? We gain more from listening to doubts than from repeating certainties.
The third time that we were given the opportunity to see your ambitions for the six months of your Presidency and beyond was of course during your performance at the last European Council. As a well-known song says, you want to make the past a blank slate, or at least send the CAP and the budget back to the drawing board. Very good, but, in that case too, the only valid question is: in order to change it in what direction?
With regard to the CAP, I agree that we should modulate aid to take account of the environment and town and country planning and to avoid productivism. I also agree that we should call into question export subsidies that compete directly with production in developing countries, particularly in Africa. I also agree whole-heartedly with putting a ceiling on aid so that it does not end up making the rich, or those pseudo-farmers sitting in the House of Lords, even richer, but I do not agree with throwing the baby out with the bathwater: a genuine agricultural sector that will protect us from scourges such as mad cow disease and that will guarantee our sovereignty over our own food in the face of ‘agribusiness’, particularly in the US. It is an issue for civilisation.
As for the infamous rebate, you will have to give it up sooner or later, because it flies in the face of common sense. Europeans should be told that, in 2005, this cheque exceeds the whole European research budget. It represents more than all the pre-accession aid granted to Romania and Bulgaria over three years. This year, it adds up to half of all the agricultural and structural aid allocated to all ten new Member States. It enables you to default on your responsibilities on enlargement, and it no doubt helps you to finance the war in Iraq. Finally, your share in financing the EU’s budget is 4.5 points lower than your share in Community revenue. Where is the solidarity in that? You want to talk about the Europe of the future, Mr Blair? Very well, you are on, let us talk about it!
(
)"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples