Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-14-Speech-3-055"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010314.2.3-055"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, President Prodi, the target the Union set itself a year ago in Lisbon to become the world’s most competitive and dynamic economic area, which could achieve both sustainable growth and create new and better jobs, and greater social cohesion, hardly lacks ambition. There may be unanimity regarding the aim; there are, however, clear political differences when it comes to the choice of remedies and how they are prioritised.
We, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, would like to emphasise that the following are some of the most important ways of fulfilling this aim: full implementation of the Single Market, the speedy liberalisation of monopolies, such as the electricity and gas boards and the Post Office, and opening up public procurement to genuine competition, without letting the question of local employment blur the issue. We would like to stress that employment targets will be achieved by encouraging entrepreneurship, SMEs being the most significant employers. We would like to stress that excessive regulation, too much faith in the omnipotence of legislation, and burdensome taxation are the worst enemies of employment. We would also like to emphasise that an innovative and information-based economy, in which everyone is given equal opportunities and individuals are given the right to get ahead and live their lives according to their own goals, means making the European labour markets a lot more flexible. It is this very lack of flexibility that separates us from the efficient US economy. Another way of increasing efficiency is to strengthen our educational systems by making them more adaptable to the needs of individuals. We must have educational establishments maintained by the state, but we also need private ones so that a competition situation may develop, based both on the students and the choice of different educational approaches. In our opinion, modernising the European social model must be made to move up a gear by making it less dependent on publicly financed collective solutions that aim to maintain social cohesion.
If we want to become the world’s best economy, we have to ask ourselves a few questions. Has the US economy grown as a result of restrictions there, over-taxation, legislation introduced with the apparent aim of giving protection, artificially preserving unproductive jobs, restricting competition or seeking to increase federal bureaucracy? Not at all; just the opposite, in fact! Have Sweden, and Finland too, seen success as IT countries in Europe and achieved peak growth because they have imposed more and more regulation? No. It is because for just over a decade both countries have invested in training and research and their conservative governments reduced the hold the state had on the economy. Has Ireland succeeded through regulation? No, it has deregulated and supported external investments by means of tax concessions, doing so well that we even have to give it a telling off for its success. The remedies for improved employment levels are simple. They are those I have mentioned, and not the well-intentioned but ineffective remedies of guardianship, control, and planning, which our socialist friends so greatly favour.
In the run-up to the Stockholm meeting Parliament must, however, voice a concern to the Commission and the Council. The gulf between the targets set and the measures taken to implement them is widening on a daily basis, although there are certainly differences between the various countries. The Council must achieve results quickly in its continued programme of liberalisation and improving the business climate, especially now that we are clearly headed for a period of uncertainty, with the USA in the lead, as prices on the stock markets fall and confidence weakens in companies and amongst consumers. If confidence goes, the strong economy goes too, and who will then give us guarantees of better jobs, better education and greater social cohesion?
The Lisbon process is not the only one which has seen a hiccup in the European machine. Although the decisions taken at Tampere on a common security area have remained in the background in the debate, their implementation has been just as slow, if not slower, than the Lisbon process. If we do not effectively prevent crime there cannot even be a real Single Market or Schengen area. A viable Single Market also requires, to mention just one detail, a viable, effective and safe air traffic system. At the moment, two countries, Spain and Britain, could torpedo efforts to achieve air safety and increased efficiency by squabbling over the insignificant airport at Gibraltar. It is hard to believe that the same countries are advising how to solve the Balkan crisis or the situation that has flared up in the Middle East.
I would also like to thank – as Mr Poettering did – Mrs Lindh for her very constructive approach to the Stockholm meeting. I might even say you are welcome to join our group when your ministerial term has finished, as what you said was so much to our liking. And now I will switch to the other official language of Finland, and say: Mrs Lindh, actual measures are what we need, and not just talk about objectives."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples