Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-18-Speech-2-031"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031118.2.2-031"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, formally speaking, the Commission’s work programme for 2004 is well presented, but reading it does not give the impression that next year is going to be a historic turning point for the European Union.
Of course, its priorities have to be approved, first and foremost the end of the accession procedure for the ten new members and the creation of a neighbourhood policy for the enlarged Union, establishing an area of peace and prosperity on the basis of shared values and interests. Here we see a concern to step up the fight against illegal immigration, which is given greater prominence than in previous programmes. Its move up the list of priorities is realistic and must of course be followed by tangible initiatives.
Approval also has to be given to efforts to establish sustainable growth through a whole series of initiatives, including, amongst others, the Lisbon objectives and the major public works programmes that are currently being planned.
Nevertheless, we remain perplexed about the calls for increased coordination of economic and budgetary matters, along the lines of the stability pact, as this risks on the contrary reducing flexibility, which would have an adverse impact on growth.
Finally, this programme leaves many questions unanswered. Some are inevitable: 2004 is full of uncertainty, with the European elections, the renewal of the Commission and the Intergovernmental Conference, the outcome of which no one can know in advance. Other questions concern enlargement, which does not amount solely to an accession procedure, as the document that has been tabled would seem to suggest, but which is also going to mean a significant change in working methods, including in the Commission. Will these working methods remain the same, as the document would seem to assume, or will they have to be changed? In addition, will we have to reckon with more differentiation? President Prodi only referred to this briefly at the end of his statement, just now, but we would have liked the document to address this issue in more detail."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples