Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-10-27-Speech-3-040"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041027.3.3-040"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the simple fact about Lisbon is that, on the core points of productivity, growth and employment, we have failed to live up to our own expectations. This has two causes, the first being factors over which we have little control, such as external indicators, global economic influences, oil prices, and so on, whilst the second, over which we do indeed have some control, has to do with the fact that only very rarely was the Lisbon project recast as a national project at Member State level. As most of the Lisbon project is outside the Community framework and has to be implemented at national level, the Member States must now be induced to devise national plans for its implementation and make the Lisbon project a priority for their own national policies. If they do not do that, it will not work, and I agree entirely with Mr Watson, that the question of whether or not we will be as good as the Americans in 2010 is an interesting issue, but probably not the decisive one. What I do think of as realistically feasible by 2010 is reversing the trend, which means reducing the productivity, growth and employment gaps and creating in Europe the dynamism that will enable us to achieve our goal of being the economically strongest region of the world, but, as little more than a perceptible reversal of trends will be possible in time for 2010, we should take a more realistic view of things.
I would like to spell out some home truths about the relationship between the Lisbon strategy, the environment, and the social framework. We do, of course, want environmental and social standards to be as high as possible; as a fundamental of European policy, this is beyond dispute. If, though, we want to have the highest possible environmental and social standards, we need the economy to be as competitive as possible, with competitive industries and competitive businesses. Competitiveness is not just about individuals being able to make the largest profits possible, but about making our national economies so strong that they can achieve the great social goals, such as high standards of environmental protection and social security. The fact is, though, that the set phrases used in Europe conceal fundamental differences in thinking. I noticed that in this debate, in which, for example, Members spoke about quite different concepts of the European social model, with one Member saying that workers in Europe were over-protected, and others saying that they enjoyed too few social rights. One said that reform must mean the dismantling of social rights; another that it must involve more social rights. Within Europe, there is absolutely no agreement as to what the term ‘social model’ actually means. If, over the coming years, I get the chance to do some work in this area of policy, I will not play along with this policy of suppression and concealment. I will make it clear that there are conflicts here, conflicts that must be called by their names; I will make it clear that decisions have to be taken in full awareness of where the conflicts actually lie, and that these empty phrases and code words, concealing as they do what are actually utterly different outlooks, do not help to solve our problems.
Please excuse my vehemence, but there are times when, in order to achieve a policy objective, one has to become accustomed to the truth, which is that there is no agreement as to how to go about organising the relationship between maximum environmental and social standards on the one hand and competitiveness on the other – but we will work at it.
Let me just say something about two other issues that have been addressed. I am grateful to Mrs Frassoni for again raising the subject of Cyprus, which gives me the chance to tell your House something more about it. I do not wish to conceal from you how deeply disappointed I am that it proved impossible to keep the promise made to the Turkish Cypriots after the April referendum by this Parliament, this Council, this Commission and the international community as a whole. They were promised that they would not suffer on account of the rejection of the referendum in the Greek part of Cyprus. We promised them that we would lead them out of their economic isolation. The Council has not yet been able to adopt the Commission proposal to this effect, and I appeal urgently, not only to the Government of the Republic of Cyprus, but also to a number of other Member States, to ensure, as a matter of urgency, that the policies of the international community and of the European Union in relation to Cyprus are implemented. The adverse effects are already visible. We worked for years to get a democratic, pro-European government in Turkish Cyprus; that government has now collapsed, as Denktash and his people were able to argue that the Europeans had, as usual, made empty promises that they could not keep. The damage already done to the prospects for a resolution of the Cyprus issue is beyond calculation, and the Commission urges that its proposal be adopted before the end of this year and that the promise we all made to the Turkish Cypriots be actually kept.
Let me conclude, ladies and gentlemen, with an observation on the economic effects of the enlargement that has already taken place and of the plans we have for the future. Mr Buzek said something very important, and the Commission endorses his view that the membership of the ten countries has brought with it a very beneficial economic surge. Our analysis shows clearly that enlargement has brought favourable economic results, not only in the new Member States, but also in the old ones, that both sides are benefiting from our integration of what are growing regions. We can expect the same thing of the accessions of Romania and Bulgaria, which are in the offing. Speaking personally, for I can say this only for myself, I am firmly convinced that, if the process of political and economic reform continues in Turkey over the next ten years, the result will be an economic situation in that country which, were it to accede, would put us in the same win-win situation as we have already had with the enlargement to include the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. That answers the question as to whether such an accession would jeopardise our social model, and the answer to that question is an unequivocal ‘no’. These countries’ accessions will not imperil our social standards; quite the contrary, they will make Europe stronger, and they will help us to achieve our goals."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples