Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-03-Speech-3-334"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011003.10.3-334"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in recent times, especially since the Stockholm European Council, the European Union has reached a turning point in competition policy. That can be seen in the increasing conservation of structures. The Agag Longo report rightly mentions this. Following the successful liberalisations of the 1990s, postal services, electricity and gas are now trying to escape the annoyance of competition again. First liberalisation, then regulation again, and the heading for this scenario is self-preservation.
The agenda for the Heads of State and Government in Laeken expressly provides for a discussion of the tension between competition and the preservation of existing interests. We are all anxious to see whether competition can win through there. If we ask about the difference between our modern, open society and another society marked by classes and castes, the answer is clear: in our open society competition has become the order, the principle on which our culture is based. General acceptance of the principle of competition is therefore a tremendous cultural achievement. But the state has never submitted itself to this principle. It has always sheltered its education system, its banks, its railway, its airlines, its postal service, its telephone networks and its housing associations from the cold wind of competition. Many sectors of the economy, too, claim that competition cannot work for them or that exposure to competition could be detrimental to the objectives they pursue..
There are plenty of examples. Coal is valued because supplies are secure. The market is said to be harmful to the health service because patients would be unable to assess the services provided. In agriculture, the market is said to be inappropriate because farmers allegedly produce even more if prices are lower. The postal service cannot be set free to compete – not completely, at any rate – because it has social functions to fulfil. So we could go on. But all these paltry excuses have one thing in common: they all recognise competition in principle, but simply claim that the principle is not applicable in their most particular case.
The situation in Europe has without a doubt become more difficult again for competition policy. That is why it is important – and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is calling for this – that EU competition policy should now finally be extended to energy, transport and pharmaceuticals. Let us therefore continue together to plan, campaign and argue for freedom."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples