Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-03-20-Speech-3-016"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020320.5.3-016"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like on behalf of the Socialist Group to express our solidarity and condolences, in association with the European Parliament’s statement, in relation to the murder of Professor Biagi, and point out that terrorism will not beat us. Furthermore, we condemn the cowardice and impunity which are unfortunately still prevailing in opposition to the idea of freedom and the European cause.
Having said this, Mr President, in relation to the labour market, I believe that reforms also have to be made, but I would draw your attention to the situation of the Directive on the regulation of working time, I would also draw your attention to something positive, which is the network of childcare centres, and I believe we should consider the issue of the retirement age given that Europe’s population is ageing.
Mr President, I will conclude by saying two things: the first is that we fully support the Declaration on the Middle East, and the second is that my Group does not understand why Ecofin can do more than the European Council in terms of creating a Euro-Mediterranean Bank. I believe that Ecofin must be subordinate to the European Council and not vice versa …
… And next I would ask the President to deliver the message that we are beginning to recover our aid – and we take it seriously – in view of Monterrey.
A final point, Mr President. You have offered the Council an olive branch in the form of practical and pragmatic dialogue. We are going to make this a reality. In January, President Aznar committed himself in this House to an interinstitutional agreement on better European regulation and legislation. This point does not seem to be reflected in the conclusions of the Barcelona Summit. There is a reference to the phantasmagorical Mandelkern report in paragraph 19 and we are asked, in paragraph 35, to approve eight directives in one fell swoop on the liberalisation of financial services. Why do we not actually sit down and reach an interinstitutional agreement to improve European legislation? We are prepared to do so. The ball is in the Council’s court.
With regard to the Barcelona Summit, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I am going to begin where you left off. You spoke of public opinion. I believe that the Barcelona Summit, as well as turning Barcelona into an open and cosmopolitan capital for Europe, has demonstrated something which refutes a criticism which we usually make: it is always said that the citizens are not interested in what we do. They have shown that this is not true with the euro and they have demonstrated it in Barcelona. Hundreds of thousands of people demonstrated peacefully in Barcelona, and that shows that what we do in the European Union is of interest to them, and it also shows something else: that we do not need to suspend the Schengen Agreement, because the people know how to behave correctly and lawfully.
As for the content of the Summit, I believe that the Barcelona Council has managed to put the Lisbon process back on track and, since you, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, are currently the driver of the Council train, I must point out that my group was enormously concerned about the clear risk of the whole train derailing as a result of the statement you yourself made saying that you were in confrontation with the Socialist majority in the Council in terms of the Barcelona Summit. I believe that to organise the process in a balanced fashion helps all of us within a process which must maintain the balance between growth and social protection in order to guarantee full employment and sustainable development.
For us, combining policies is very important. We believe that liberalisation, which means regulated deregulation, makes sense if it offers better services at a better price. But it requires – and this is in the Council’s conclusions – better regulation and monitoring. It requires that public monopolies are not replaced with private monopolies and above all it requires –and I address this to the Commission – the realisation of the proposed framework directive safeguarding services of general interest.
We believe that this is absolutely fundamental.
With regard to the Stability and Growth Pact, we are in favour of growth. Why do you not review that pact? I have never understood – and I believe that the people do not understand either – why, if a country has a deficit approaching 3%, it has to be fined. All that would do is make things difficult for the country. Therefore, a pact that was established according to the ideas of German conservatives requires a degree of revision in order for it to make more sense."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples