Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-03-Speech-3-063"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991103.6.3-063"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the macroeconomic dialogue that the European employment pact has established is a highly praiseworthy new exercise. There is never enough dialogue between political leaders and economic operators. I would nevertheless like to question the real impact of a dialogue which is fixed beforehand by abstruse procedural rules. First of all, there is a technical level which allows fifteen experts to discuss matters and twenty-five other experts to listen; the political level will bring together twenty-four high representatives and 18 aides. It is understood in advance that the aim of this two-level dialogue is not to reach agreement on common guidelines or binding commitments; this dialogue will therefore not result in an ex ante agreement for the coordination of different fiscal, budgetary, monetary or even contractual policies.
Governments and the Central Bank will remain free to decide on their own respective policies. Their social partners will continue their free negotiation on conditions of work and pay.
What will be the added value of this exercise? Whilst I hope that I will be pleasantly surprised, please allow me to remain sceptical. To tell the truth, the European Union would gain from rationalising the different projects launched by successive Presidencies following the Amsterdam summit. Who, apart from the professionals involved in Community policy, is still involved in the processes known as Luxembourg, Cardiff, Vienna, Cologne and tomorrow Lisbon or Helsinki? The debates on employment guidelines which are, of course, always useful, overlap with discussions on the broad economic policy guidelines and now with the macroeconomic dialogue.
Green papers and white papers come one after another and are all more or less alike. The Commission’s communications pile up on top of reports and resolutions by Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. So many words, and quite often incomprehensible to the average citizen! Community texts look more and more like the political literature that used to be produced by the former Soviet Union. The bulk is made up of quotations and references to sacred texts adopted by the European Council or the Commission: replace plenum of the Central Committee with European Council and politburo by Commission and the texts become interchangeable.
European citizens do not expect more words, rather concrete measures for employment. Macroeconomic dialogue only makes sense if it results in macroeconomic action. Maintaining price stability is still crucial. Inflation affects the poorest people first but the Union’s sole ambition cannot be a policy of stability which is established as dogma. Each Member State taken individually is too open to other markets to practise a policy of growth in isolation.
The Union is a rather closed entity. Intercommunity trade represents some 90% of the common GDP. At a time when economic recovery might permit both a reduction of public deficits and a policy of maintaining growth, effective coordination of budgetary policies focusing mainly on infrastructural investments, research, education and training could achieve a sustainable economic revival."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples