Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-04-22-Speech-4-032"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040422.2.4-032"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I too, Madam President, would like to take the opportunity during these last sittings to congratulate Mrs Randzio-Plath on her work and to offer her my friendship again, as well as Mr Jonckheer and Mr Goebbels and the others. We have not only deplored the European Union’s situation of profound underemployment and weak growth, but we have sought to build an economic policy at European Union level. In order to overcome the various obstacles, I too would like, moreover, now to put forward some political objectives.
The first is that we must first of all seize the opportunity that enlargement offers. The new Member States want growth and they need solidarity. Just like us, and even more so, it is in their interest that the enlarged Europe be a much more dynamic region of the world. The fears of the West must, therefore, be dispelled and common interest built, which means that positive mobility, restructuring and specialisation strategies that enable human and productive capacities in the East and the West to be increased are essential. How, though, are these to be brought about?
The second objective is to create new options in the debate on structural reforms. How can investment be encouraged? Two ways are possible. Only the first of these is being used at the moment: the drawing power of capital for high profitability, with fiscal and statutory competition. Failure is inevitable. Another way is to be opened up. Indeed, we must issue the challenge of a new mixed economy, a mixed economy of multinational cooperation, founded on policies of partnership and networks. This is the structural reform that Europe needs and that we will have to devise.
The third objective is the renewal of the macroeconomic framework. The Lisbon strategy chose good objectives and a good driving force, but its guidelines are still very ambiguous and it has not found the tools to work with. The greatest ambiguity reigns as regards its interpretation. National policies differ. The redefinition of this policy must be at the heart of the agenda of the next few years, particularly in relation to the Stability and Growth Pact. I think that with a good European budget and fiscal harmonisation, we would indeed be in a better position to resolve the problems relating to the reduction of national public deficits.
Finally, my last point is a question of method. The Member States have got an absolute nerve: they do not respect the Lisbon strategy; they do not take it on board. We must build up the responsibility of the national parliaments and envisage reinforced cooperation in the field of economics, but it is particularly amongst the players of civil society, amongst businesses and territorial communities, that we suffer most from a loss of profit. There is a mass of activities to start, but a great backlog of projects and of players. European policy is only possible on the basis of decentralised participation."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples