Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-14-Speech-3-057"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010314.2.3-057"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"That is very reassuring, Mr President. I thought that a flying saucer was just about to take off.
Mr President, I will finish by saying, as President Prodi has just said, that the priority at Stockholm must be to invest in people, education, information and research into the infrastructures that we have for improving the quality of life.
Madam President-in-Office, President of the Commission, in view of the generally illegible resolutions that Parliament is in the habit of adopting, let me formulate a few simple ideas.
First of all a discovery: the European Union is not doing too badly. Of course, unemployment is still too high, but 2.5 million new jobs have been created. In 2000, we saw satisfactory economic growth and Europe became the pole of growth for the global economy. Inflation is lower in Europe than in the United States. Public deficits have been reduced. Salary increases have been in line with productivity gains. The internal market and the imminent launch of the euro will protect us even further against external shocks. Therefore, the US economic slow-down will affect us less than usual because trade exchanges between the fifteen Member States constitute nine tenths of our joint domestic product.
Of course, there are deficits in Europe especially in new technologies, this being less marked for information technologies than for biotechnologies. In 2000, European investment in the ICT sector was higher than in the United States, even though some countries are still lagging well behind. The leading exporting force in the world, in 2000 the European Union achieved one fifth of its exports in the high tech sector.
Not everything is perfect in Europe, of course. We do not invest enough in education, training and lifelong learning. There is not enough investment in research. Our public spending is at the same level as in the United States and the private sector must make more effort. We can do better in many areas.
Stockholm must give the necessary impetus, particularly in employment and social affairs, as Mrs Lindh has just underlined. By making the right choices in Stockholm, we will be able to set a virtual circle in motion which will also benefit our partners in the rest of the world. Making the correct choices is not about choosing unbridled liberalisation and deregulation without regard for our social model and our environment.
Structural reforms still need to be carried out; corporate and protectionist reflexes still need to be surmounted. It will not, however, be by demolishing a universal public service that we will obtain a better service and lower prices for consumers. Deregulation does not mean the lack of regulation. Deregulation always results in new rules, which do not always benefit consumers, as electricity consumers in California have just discovered. The liberalisation of the telecommunications sector above all has seen positive results because it took place at the same time as the technology revolution with mobile phones and the Internet.
The new economy has nevertheless experienced problems. Any new technology is just a tool. Simply prefixing an
to customary economic terms does not eliminate the long-established rules of supply and demand and of the need for profitability. The world’s stock markets are currently paying dearly for the lack of respect shown to elementary economic rules. The end to irrational exuberance on the financial markets paradoxically offers us the chance to turn our attention to the real economy and to influence the factors which are fundamental for the well-being of our citizens."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"e"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples