Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-03-Speech-3-070"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991103.6.3-070"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"At the beginning of this year a macroeconomic dialogue became absolutely essential and no doubt the first meeting of the partners to that macroeconomic dialogue next week will be an historic step.
Sadly we here in Parliament will be witnessing it from the sidelines. Despite an absolutely resounding rejection just last June in the European Parliament elections of the remoteness and secrecy of our institutions collectively, that first step next week will be adding to the democratic deficit in that Parliament will be excluded and there seems to be no good reason for this.
The partners to the dialogue are of two types. First there are those like the social partners or the central bank who have a direct influence on facets of the equation such as wage formation or the level of interest rates and then secondly, in a class of their own, are the European Commission and the Commission advisers on the direction, for example, of the policy mix. They do not directly affect any of the facets of the equation, they have not got that decision-making power. They are there to advise and influence. In this respect this institution is one of the Commission’s main interlocutors. We might disagree with the advice and the direction they will suggest but we will not have the right to be there at the macroeconomic dialogue to say so.
I am told that these sorts of things are technical issues and that we in Parliament should remain above them, but to me the issues that will be discussed in the macroeconomic dialogue that have been touched upon here are not technical, they are highly political and we, as the democratically elected institution, should have a part to play in that macroeconomic dialogue.
That leaves the excuse of what some call the need for confidentiality, trust or even secrecy. Some have used the word secrecy. That is a retrograde step. We have found all sorts of ways in the budgetary procedure to find a working arrangement for this institution together with the Commission to maintain confidentiality and that could be done in relation to this dialogue.
On the content, I hope the macroeconomic dialogue will call for and take note of evidence on the success of the active labour market measures we have been increasingly pursuing since Luxembourg. Has that resulted in an increase in the effective supply of labour or do we need to hang on to the increasing unsustainable view that structural unemployment represents the bulk of unemployment? Can we begin to abandon concepts like that, can we perhaps begin to take a more realistic view in the setting of interest rates, a view which would accept that conditions have changed and that we can now begin to hold back on interest rate increases as unemployment falls so as not to choke off a fragile growth?
These are the sorts of points I would love to be at the macroeconomic dialogue next week to make, but sadly neither I nor any other Member of this institution will be allowed to be present at that meeting next week. That is a real retrograde step and an absolute shame."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples