Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-03-Speech-3-073"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991103.6.3-073"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President the procedure relating to the macroeconomic dialogue that has been presented to us is characterised by two dominant features at the moment. The first is the fact that very vague aims are expressed, in terms that are much more emotional than practical. The second is the way that they are formulated appears to be liberal but actually results in further constraints.
The first matter concerns the very vague aims of growth and employment. These are things that we have been promised for years. It has been discussed in Vienna, in Luxembourg, in Cardiff, and in goodness knows how many other places. We now have to recognise the fact that until now the Europe of full employment has been the same Europe that has made unemployment worse. This is unemployment that does not exist to the same degree in developed countries that are not Members of the Union such as Switzerland or Norway. To seriously address the problem of full employment would mean questioning the validity of removing borders but that will not come into the discussion, because that would mean opposing globalisation. It would mean questioning the validity of excessive taxation and bureaucracy but that will not come into the discussion because that would mean opposing the doctrines of socialism. It would mean questioning the validity of our immigration policy which takes a heavy toll of employment not to mention the costs that it incurs, but that will not come into the discussion either because it would mean opposing the orthodoxy of the single-system Europe.
I fear therefore, that the real problems will not be addressed but also – this is the second aspect, as vague as it is – that the terms of this dialogue will result in further constraints. We are being told that there will be dialogue, but the simple fact that certain subjects are being mentioned means that they will fall within the Union’s area of competence, and the Union is beginning to look more and more like the frog who ended up exploding because he wanted to become as big as a cow. We are also being told of coordination, harmonisation and cohesion; even striking a balance is mentioned, never constrictive regulations and detailed laws which would restrict everyone’s freedom. This, however, is the direction in which we are inexorably heading. Currency standardisation has resulted in the standardisation of financial policies; the standardisation of financial policies has resulted in the standardisation of economic policies and the standardisation of economic policies in the standardisation of social policies. We all know full well that this is the direction in which a hidden hand is leading us in this area. Hazy arguments will not bring about the freedom of nations, as they would have us believe; they serve only to hide the aims to which they would like to lead those nations. These aims are undoubtedly already known, but only by a select few."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples