Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-01-28-Speech-3-049"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040128.5.3-049"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would be quite happy to agree with the points Mr Karas has just made, for there is little to be objected to in what he said, but, nevertheless, if we carry on debating with each other much longer – as the members of the committee already have been – very profound differences will keep on cropping up here and there, and I think we have to say something about these in order to understand each other a bit better.
What is clear is that competition policy is an important and indispensable instrument, enabling the European internal market to function and facilitating ever-deeper integration, so that the gains in terms of prosperity and efficiency resulting from a large and integrated market can be put to good use. I called competition policy an instrument, and that is what it is, rather than an end in itself; if it were an end in itself, it would very rapidly degenerate into something purely ideological. Competition policy is an instrument that has to be subject to social and civil policy objectives and must help achieve them. The fact is, then, that we do not live and move in a free market economy, as the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs’ draft resolution puts it, but in an environmentally-responsible and social market economy. Mr Karas, you have just used the term ‘social market economy’, but you voted against it in the committee. It is astonishing how the Conservatives and Christian Democrats in this House have refused to talk in terms of the social market economy, and I can tell the Members on the other side of the House that they can correct their group’s embarrassing mistake in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs in tomorrow’s plenary vote, by voting in favour of our amendments.
Although we are in favour of tight controls on mergers, their strength must lie in their taking into account their effects on society and on employment and in their giving workers and those who represent their interests a say in decision-making processes. That is a suggestion for the Commissioner. We in the Group of the Party of European Socialists are also in favour of tight controls on subsidies, but subsidies can be eminently justifiable if they lead to modernisation, improved competitiveness, innovation, sustainable growth and the creation of long-term employment. What I would like to see is even greater attention being given, when assessing subsidies, to the effects – including the positive ones – on the whole chain of exploitation within which the subsidy is made. We have already had a whole series of debates on this.
My time is running out, so I will end with a question to the Commissioner. Commissioner Monti, you have now become acquainted with our resolution – from the last part-session in Strasbourg – on services of general interest, in which we spoke out plainly in favour of codecision by this House on a legal framework, which means that it cannot be regarded as assent only to a block exemption regulation – which is the impression I got from the Commission’s reaction. We have also asked whether there is to be a follow-up within the life of this Parliament, which has not much longer left to run. We cannot have any more long-drawn-out discussions, and so I would like to know how work on this within the Commission is progressing."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples