Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-03-Speech-3-081"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991103.6.3-081"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, both the President-in-Office of the Council and Mrs Diamantopoulou have made certain observations concerning the issues covered in this debate and, therefore, I shall simply introduce certain additional elements. Firstly, we are aware – and this has been explained well – that the dialogue is aimed at preparing the political debate, not replacing it. Therefore, it is an essential element of information which, unfortunately, cannot lead us, as some MEPs have suggested, to the definition of a different economic policy. The coordination of our economic policy is not on that level at the moment. Neither does the dialogue intend excessive consensus nor authoritarianism. It is an exchange of information with the aim that the different economic operators should understand the reality better and be able to act accordingly.
The problem regarding the content of the dialogue and of the members who take part in it is, and will always be, contentious. Should it include the issue of the environment? Should other elements be included which clearly relate to the economy but not to the aspects of macroeconomic policy to be applied at a particular moment? An increase in the content of the dialogue will possibly not make it more useful, but will cause it to lose some of its effectiveness because we will be causing greater dispersion.
The second problem, concerning who should or should not participate in the dialogue has been mentioned today. Should the Social and Economic Committee and the Committee of the Regions also have their place in the macroeconomic dialogue? They could undoubtedly make an interesting contribution despite the different nature of the participation of the businessmen and workers in, for example, the Economic and Social Committee.
Nevertheless, the essential point which has been put forward – and I understand this perfectly – is the possibility of the European Parliament itself participating in the macroeconomic dialogue. Both the President-in-Office of the Council and Commissioner Diamantopoulou have referred to this issue. You already know the situation, thanks to the decisions of the European Council. Having said that, what can we do and what are we doing? Of course, we can be here today, we can inform you of the work we have done up till now, and make ourselves available to you to carry on debating with Parliament the issues which are of interest with regard to the macroeconomic dialogue. The fact that you are not physically at the dialogue table does not mean that it is out of the question that Parliament may maintain a presence, with the opportunity to communicate its ideas. I believe that today, certain issues of interest have been highlighted. Is it necessary to pursue a policy of greater demand in the present context? Is it reasonable to continue to plan certain elements of the structural policies as has been decided? Is it useful to envisage, in the long term, the presence of Parliament in the macroeconomic dialogue, given that it is very likely that, in the future, the conditions of that dialogue will turn out to be different from the present ones?
These are questions which we have taken note of, which we will study very carefully, and obviously we will remain committed to keeping Parliament informed and even holding a debate with Parliament on those points which are of special interest to it."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples