Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-11-Speech-2-121"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000411.5.2-121"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I welcome the Lisbon conclusions. In fact, seen from the perspective of employment and social policy and against the long procession of summits which preceded it, Lisbon stands out along with Luxembourg in terms of the potential it offers us. I stress the word "potential" because, as others have said, we now need to look at the follow-up. Partly that follow-up is institutional. We will be looking very carefully, for example, at how the broad economic guidelines will be prepared, at just how successful the input of the Social Affairs and Employment Council will be in emphasising the need for employment and social cohesion when it formulates the broad economic guidelines.
Also, we are told that each spring the European Council will consider an overall report to be produced by the Commission that will deal with structural indicators to be agreed. We wonder who will agree those structural indicators and just how strong the synthesis report to be produced by the Commission will be. What will the role of the Commission and this institution be? Will it, in fact, be largely intergovernmental? If so, I think we will be disappointed.
But we are not just concerned about the institutional follow-up. We are also concerned about the substance. What proposals, for example, will the Commission come forward with by June this year on social inclusion, as it was challenged to do in the Lisbon conclusions? Further than that, how quickly will the high-level group on the future of social protection begin to move into the realm of a convergence strategy for social protection that this House has called for? So we are concerned with the substantive follow-up as well.
One point disappoints me – that is the stance of the EPP in all this. It is trying to pretend that it welcomes the outcome because it is largely liberal and concentrates upon the liberal market aspects. It should be honest and say that, like us, it has always supported a social market economy. We welcome the emphasis upon the smooth and efficient functioning of markets. But as always we want that to be balanced by solidarity and social inclusion. I hope the group has the political honesty to accept that it continues to support that point of view."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples