Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-09-14-Speech-2-037"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19990914.1.2-037"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, our group’s vote, which expresses our lack of confidence in the Commission, is not down to disliking the people, the Members of the Commission, or the President, but is the result of a political assessment of their programmes.
We have listened carefully and with an open mind to the President’s repeated statements and the Commission hearings, and this has allowed us to welcome the commitment which springs from a new relationship between the Commission and Parliament.
Following the collapse of the previous Commission, a significant change is being proposed, which includes the undertaking to produce an Annual Report on the State of the Union. This is a change that we welcome.
Nevertheless, on the subject of the programme, our dissent could not be clearer. Indeed, the Commission appears to be continuing along the same path as the previous Commission. We disapproved before, and disapprove even more today, because to continue along that path now, in the light of two important new events – first, the terrible war in the Balkans, whose effects are still being felt, and second, the creation of the euro, something which has the potential for development. We would then need a new political plan to deal with the economic and social issues.
The tragedy in East Timor testifies to the falsity of the thinking behind the war in the Balkans. The UN Charter was torn up and international aid and the supremacy of the United States was the only reason behind the war. America’s geopolitical vision worried even its old friends like Helmut Schmidt.
You are proposing an ambiguous response on the UN, which is dominated by the United States from a military point of view, and you are totally uncritical with regard to the process of globalisation of the world economy which greatly reduces Europe’s autonomy. Basically, there are no original ideas for a new social and political European model, so it might end up simply as a watered-down copy of the North American model.
I am struck by the Commission’s lack of useful and original discussions on culture, mass communication and artistic and cultural production, with regard to which Europe is showing a distrust and a stubborn resistance to the influence of the United States.
However, it is mainly your proposals on economic and social matters that do not convince us. The Stability Pact has been confirmed, and you propose a neoliberal approach to the World Trade Organisation’s important meeting. This is basically another monetarist orthodoxy which goes against any proposed attempts to leave it behind, such as the proposals made by the French Government or by a Minister such as Lafontaine.
We have seen the creation of the euro and, as the President says, we are in an economic upturn, although mass unemployment undermines this orthodox policy. You propose maintaining this policy so that in reality, you can pursue the goal of increased productivity by means of increased flexibility in work. However, this will lead to an increase not a reduction in the social crisis. Mr President, I fear that this will accentuate Europe’s political crisis and widen the gap between the European citizens and these institutions."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples