Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-12-Speech-3-306"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000412.11.3-306"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, many thanks for giving me the floor regarding an issue which is very dear to the Commission as a whole and myself, in particular, namely the new strategy for the internal market. To begin with, I would like to extend my warm thanks to Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi for the ardent support she has shown for the set of measures proposed by the Commission. The Commission feels confirmed in its intention thanks to this important vote of confidence coming from this Parliament.
I would now like to comment on a remark made by Mr Medina Ortega. He said that at present, there is a risk of state monopolies being replaced by private monopolies. I would like to assure Mr Medina Ortega that this is, of course, by no means the intention. Replacing a state monopoly by a private monopoly only makes matters worse. This is certainly not the intention of this Commission. What the Commission does intend to do, however, is to add substance to the decisions taken by the European Council at Lisbon, namely to free up the markets for gas, electricity, transport and postal services a lot faster. The Commission is trying to flesh this out and this also means that those state monopolies need to allow for more competition in the fields I mentioned a moment ago. But, I repeat, the prospect of replacing state monopolies by private monopolies is something which we do not exactly relish.
I would then like to come back to the remarks made by Mr Harbour, who, like Mr Beysen and Mrs Plooij-van Gorsel, was absolutely right to highlight the importance of small and medium-sized businesses and the costs related to running these businesses. The Commission is aware that, for example, the costs involved in establishing a business or a small business over here far outstrip the costs in the United States. To give you an idea of the cost difference, it takes an average of five days to set up a small or medium-sized business in the United States. In Europe it takes far longer, even as long as five months, a ratio of 1 in 30. This is, of course, directly reflected in the cost. If we then talk about culture, and I am addressing Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi once again, we need to try to do something about these establishment costs of small businesses very quickly, because otherwise we will naturally come off second-best in the competitive battle with North America.
Finally, I would like to turn to Mrs Berger as I have already responded to Mr Beysen’s remarks concerning small and medium-sized businesses. I have quoted what Mrs Berger said earlier about the hat which you cannot simply take off. I like this metaphor because it is true that European citizens have the feeling that this internal market is already in place. They take it for granted and do not give it any further thought. This could not be further from the truth. The internal market is far from complete. We must – and the Commission does, in fact – work on it week in week out and defend it, because the internal market is subject to constant pressure, and the Member States fall back into old, protectionist habits which we need to fight. Mrs Berger was right to refer to directives which remain in the Council. We are all familiar with examples of directives which remain in a vacuum for five, ten or even fifteen years because they are not adopted by the Council. Let us hope that this will change. If you will allow me to highlight one aspect of it: we all hope, of course, that the difference of opinion which is keeping Spain and the United Kingdom divided over a well-known rock in the Southern half of this continent, will now be resolved. I read in an article in a Spanish newspaper that the issue is moving in the right direction. This would actually unblock half a dozen directives. We are all waiting for this moment.
To sum up, on the subject of Echelon, I can assure Mrs Berger that this is completely unrelated to the internal market and does not form any threat to it whatsoever.
Mr President, this concludes my remarks. Could I once again express my appreciation to the Members of Parliament and the rapporteur, in particular, for the important vote of confidence which we received from Parliament regarding the new strategy for the internal market?
Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi has mentioned three topics. First of all, she stressed the importance of the internal market as a forum in the world, which is essential for the competitiveness of European industry and the European service industry, and she is absolutely right, of course. This is, in fact, echoed in Mrs Berger’s remarks, who stated that the internal market is not an old hat one can simply take off, the internal market is and will remain essential to European competitiveness as a forum in the world.
Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi’s second remark highlights a number of inconsistencies. According to her, sometimes one does not know where one stands. This would be a serious shortcoming if it were true to this extent. Needless to say, the Commission attempts to establish internal consistency between rules, but it is, of course, possible for rules to be in conflict with one another in certain areas. If this were the case, then the Commission would be more than happy to rectify this situation. I would like to thank Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi and the other Members for their comments regarding specific inconsistencies between rules. This will enable the Commission to do something about this.
Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi’s third remark concerns the change in culture. This is an important yet very difficult topic, which predominantly refers to the availability of risk capital, as Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi has also pointed out. There happen to be bankers in the risk capital industry who believe that Europe has the money but lacks the entrepreneurs. In other words, according to these bankers I spoke to recently, the bottleneck is not so much due to the availability of capital as to the availability of entrepreneurs. This is tied in with the economic culture.
I happen to disagree with these critics. Responsibility lies with both camps. The bottleneck is the result of both the availability of risk capital, especially the cost of risk capital, but we are also, of course, lacking the sufficient entrepreneurship. This is down to Europe’s economic culture which still instils in us the belief that bankruptcy will stay with a young entrepreneur for a long time, while in the United States, as everyone knows, bankruptcy is taken far more lightly.
I hence agree with Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi that something needs to be done to breathe new life into Europe’s entrepreneurial culture. Moreover, I suspect that in the light of developments, which are termed the “new economy”, an increasing number of, mainly, young people, young entrepreneurs, will be encouraged to start up a business.
After having expressed my thanks once again to the rapporteur, Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, I would now like to move on to remarks made by Mr Berenguer Fuster. According to him, the Commission should have more political courage, especially in the fiscal domain. My response to Mr Berenguer Fuster is: should the Commission have yet more political courage? What the Commission is trying to bring about is already so hard to achieve. That does not just pertain to the topic that was under discussion earlier this evening, namely the coordination of taxes and tax legislation regarding pension contributions. It also concerns the taxation package formulated by my predecessor, Mr Monti. Moreover, during the discussion of the previous topic, Mr Lipietz remarked that he, and probably his group too, is not prepared to further liberalise the provision of financial services if the package, also known as the Monti package, is not adopted. I would like to oppose such reasoning which has no foundations in the real world. It would be an example of cutting off your nose to spite your face, if Parliament or the Commission were to say that they refuse to make further attempts to integrate the financial services if no progress were made in terms of the taxation package. This would not be the right attitude, in my opinion. Although Mr Berenguer Fuster has not said this in so many words of course, I would still like to take the opportunity to stress this point.
I ask Mr Berenguer Fuster if he would like the Commission to have yet more political courage? We are already struggling to achieve what we have proposed. I would like to see the Commission achieve what it has proposed to do first and then take it from there.
Mr Berenguer Fuster has also said that a great deal still needs to be done in the field of financial services. And he is right, of course. Mr Berenguer Fuster is undoubtedly familiar with the action plan for financial services which was adopted on 13 May 1999 and which includes 43 objectives. We are in the process of achieving these, at least we are in the process of achieving those objectives that need to be achieved this year. I am hoping, on behalf of the Commission, to make certain proposals regarding pensions, for example – we discussed this topic a moment ago – but also regarding the opening up of markets for postal services, regarding the public provision of goods and services, public tendering etc., before the summer recess. We are truly active in the field which is dear to Mr Berenguer Fuster."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples