Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-15-Speech-4-028"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030515.1.4-028"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Commissioner, we have heard a great many noble objectives being expressed in today's debate. We have heard about full employment and social security, and there is undoubtedly a broad consensus here in this House. The only question is: how do we achieve it?
The EU is responsible for competition, the internal market, the euro, for areas where there are common objectives and a common need for action, and I think that is the right approach. However, I am a fervent opponent of the plan to coordinate economic policies at European level in future. In fact, I would be happy if the things that do fall within European competence actually worked out in practice, which brings me to two points.
Here we are today, with yet another debate about the Lisbon strategy; my astonishment mounts from day to day whenever the Commission talks about this strategy and claims that it is continuing to pursue this objective. Perhaps in many years' time, we will talk about how Europe had a dream. We should look at ourselves self-critically for once and ask how on earth we are ever to achieve this goal. I would like to focus on two points here, and I am particularly interested in tangible action. Firstly, I expect the Commission, in future, to identify exactly where the homework needs to be done at national level. In other words, it must put its finger on the weak spots, and do so promptly. This issue has already been addressed on numerous occasions. The second point that I see as being very important is that the Commission should not undermine its own actions in future. We have Commissioner Monti who is responsible for competition, we have Commissioner Bolkestein who deals with the internal market, we have Commissioner Liikanen who is responsible for business and who says what form it must take in Europe, we have Commissioner de Palacio, and we have Commissioner Solbes, who regularly tells us which structural reforms are needed in Europe and the Member States, and I support that, I am not criticising. However, where I do criticise these Commissioners and what annoys me is when the Commission itself produces proposals which conflict with this Lisbon objective, which conflict with the aim of deregulating the labour market. I am thinking, for example, of the directive on precontractual employment relationships and the form that they will have to take in future and also the discrimination which will occur if an entrepreneur – even if he has not yet signed a contract – fails to keep his eye on the ball and ends up being sued because the Commission did not think to build in a reversal of the burden of proof here. I have written to these Commissioners. Mr Solbes, you have answered on behalf of the Commission. Unfortunately, your answer was not specific enough. What I want from the Commission is a shift away from the principle that each Commissioner conducts the affairs of his or her department independently along the lines of ‘I'll do my thing and you do yours’. Please stop the Commission from producing any more directives like this, which, in practice, conflict with the objectives that you yourselves have set for the Member States.
This brings me to my second point, namely the Stability and Growth Pact. On the one hand, I would like to thank you, for at a time when criticism of this issue is being voiced in the Commission, you have kept the flag flying and ultimately campaigned resolutely for the Stability and Growth Pact. However, here too, I expect you to put your finger on the weak spots clearly and promptly in future. The last time you appeared before us in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, the opinions you expressed on Germany were quite opaque. I asked you this: ‘Are you assuming that what is planned is adequate? Are you assuming that the deficit criterion will not be exceeded this year? Are you assuming that the target will be achieved in 2004 or 2006?’ We all knew that this would not be the case. Here, your task would be to speak up promptly and send out a clear warning signal so that no one is surprised when the target is not achieved after all. False expectations are being awakened, and you have a responsibility to ensure compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples