Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-17-Speech-3-042"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000517.3.3-042"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, I am very happy to reiterate your closing words in the debate on subsidiarity or coordination. I agree with you, Commissioner, when you say that there is no contradiction between these two terms, and that they should both be perfectly achievable. Perhaps this debate, on the 11 stability plans presented by the countries participating in the euro and the four convergence plans, is a good time to review the harmonisation between the subsidiarity and coordination required by the introduction and future of the single currency.
This, therefore, is the flip-side of the debate which we have just held on the report by Mr Katiforis, and we must firstly begin to think about the instrument. This is the first time that this Parliament has debated the 15 plans presented by the Member States. I suspect that, in subsequent versions, the report will not be a single whole, but rather a detailed study will have to be made of the solutions, the weak and strong points, which this Parliament detects in the economic policies proposed by the Member States.
We are therefore going to ask for more detail in the plans which are submitted, in the structure of expenditure and also of income, paying particular attention to investments. We would ask that the projections they make in the medium and long term take account of different scenarios relating to the development of interest rates, demographic development and other variables affecting the stability of our accounts in the long term.
We also ask in this regard – and I am returning to the debate on subsidiarity – for greater political commitment from the 15 national parliaments. We believe that this is a task which falls to everyone, and not just to the European Parliament. Some Member States have subjected the stability and convergence plans to internal debate in order to seek political support for this idea of jointly building economic unity, and we should ask the Member States who have not done so to debate these programmes in their parliaments in order to try, firstly, to persuade those states and parliaments to participate in this common task and, secondly, to provide political support for the commitments which are agreed to regarding the necessary coordination of economic policies.
Turning to the report’s proposals to the House, I am very pleased to note that all of the budgetary objectives established in previous programmes have been met, and even exceeded. However, this cause for satisfaction is counter-balanced by the fact that, aside from the possible criticism that the objectives could perhaps have been more demanding and rigorous, we are seeing that the objectives have been achieved, not as a result of the interest and efforts of the Member States, but simply to factors such as the favourable development of interest rates or greater than expected tax revenue.
We therefore believe that, although budgetary consolidation must continue to be a priority, the economic environment – which has improved a lot – must offer us the possibility of speeding up consolidation and, at the same time, undertaking structural reforms in the medium term. It is not acceptable for this relative economic boom to dissuade the Member States from making decisions – sometimes difficult decisions – on structural reforms. These include, firstly, labour reform, which we discussed earlier. It is clear that not all the states have implemented the labour reforms which we consider appropriate. The improved performance of the labour market – which is clear – has been based on satisfactory economic growth, and not all the Member States have made the rigorous reforms that they must make, more radical reforms, to resolve the unacceptable problem of the high rate of unemployment in the European countries in comparison to other countries and which is not only an economic blight but also, and above all, a personal and family blight which cannot be permitted in the modern Europe of the 21st Century.
It is also crucial that we liberalise the telecommunications and energy markets, and not all countries are doing so in the same way.
With regard to tax reform, we should welcome the reduction in the high level of taxes in France, Germany, the Netherlands and Spain, and we should bear in mind that the high rate of unemployment often relates to the fact that we have high levels of tax.
In the long-term reforms, we should also include the serious problem of population. In the programmes presented to us, we note that particular attention is given to the ageing of the population. Perhaps it is time that we insisted that Member States resolve the demographic problem at source, through a suitable approach to both tax revenue policies and social expenditure, in order to protect families with children. This is the way to tackle the problem at source, and not only its effects. This is the only way we will prevent the old Europe from becoming a decrepit Europe."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples