Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-03-Speech-3-068"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991103.6.3-068"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr Niinistö, Commissioner, if the millions of European unemployed had heard this first account of the macroeconomic dialogue promoting growth and employment, they would have despaired. It seems that, apart from evoking the odd principle, there is nothing incisive, there are no proposals and there is no blunt analysis – and we need a blunt analysis of the state of many of the European economies, especially those of the European continent.
Commissioner, when I hear talk of macroeconomic dialogue – given that the definition seems extremely evasive – the conciliation process in Italy comes to mind. What I am afraid of is that this macroeconomic dialogue will try to export to European level the method and mechanism of the Italian conciliation process, which is the method that has given our country its lowest growth rates, its highest unemployment levels and its highest inflation rates. In Italy, conciliation between social partners and the Government has become a pact between the representatives of established interests –unionist, political and those of
(the Italian Manufacturers’ Association) – seeking to protect the established interests and revenues from the possibility of the unemployed and all those who are not represented by conciliation having a place in the new economy.
In Italy, conciliation with the social partners has blocked all the strategies and the hypotheses for reform on the crucial points – I am thinking of the labour market, public spending and social security spending in particular, a labour market act which closely follows the one adopted in the seventies. Both the representative of the Council and the representative of the Commission were right only about one thing, that is the request for pay moderation. In Italy, starting with pay moderation, which the trade union oligarchs allowed, any plans for reforming the economy have been blocked. I wonder why we have to tell European workers that only one thing is certain, that their pay will be moderated. And I wonder why, on the other hand, we must not say that if – thanks to liberalisation and thanks to being able to accept the challenges of the new economy openly – we manage to reverse the downward trend in economic growth, there will be wealth and there will also be the prospect of salary increases. Instead of having collective national or European contracts, maybe these salary increases can be linked to productivity and the profits of firms.
In conclusion, I think that we should use this dialogue, if necessary, to explain to the European citizens why employment has increased by 45% in twenty years in the United States but only by 4.12% in Europe. I think that the European unemployed, and maybe even immigrants need liberalisation, less State interference, less taxes and less State intervention in the economy. Maybe this would lead to economic growth and more employment."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Confindustria"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples