Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-17-Speech-3-024"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000517.2.3-024"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I enthusiastically support the further deepening of integration. Many matters are best dealt with at Community level, but when I read the report of my colleague Mr Katiforis – which provides several guidelines which are favourable to the market economy and therefore worthy of support – I cannot agree with some of the proposals in it. The dynamism and desired growth of the European economy will not come about by creating Union-wide integrated programmes, whether they be applied with good intentions in the area of training or entrepreneurship or whether they be common support systems for the benefit of SME organisations. I also have my personal doubts about the superiority of a European scientific community, if it is to be created from above, i.e. by the volition of the Commission and the Council, and not allowed to develop naturally through networking between the scientific communities, from one business or university to another; financing, both at a national and European level, must naturally be secured.
Something which I have reservations about is the faith in the importance of top-level structures which stands out in this report; a programme and planning from the top may actually put the brakes on development rather than make it dynamic. At present, European dynamism will be improved by dismantling top-level structures, for example, barriers to trade, which are still hindering the creation of a genuine internal market. This is what Mr Katiforis is also calling for, albeit of the Commission, when it should be demanded of those nation states, which – in a few individual cases – practice obstructionism, for example, in the areas of transport, public procurement or energy.
When discussing economic policies in the context of this report, we should not forget about competition policy. Recently, the neutrality of the Communities’ competition policy has been called into question – justifiably so
in the case of Volvo-Scania. The reason given for regional monopolies and concentration of power in regions with a small population base is rather lame. It is clearly a real blow to the industry and trade of small and remote countries while they are making efforts to increase their competitiveness within the Union area."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples