Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-03-15-Speech-3-047"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060315.3.3-047"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, one year on from the mid-term review of the Lisbon Agenda, it is time to ask once more what stage Europe has reached. Unfortunately, the answer to this question is a sobering one; following the political shock administered by the ‘no’ vote against the constitution, we now face the threat of economic paralysis, of Lisbon becoming, like the celebrated woman without the lower half of her body, an attraction in a freak show, for, despite the consensus that the strategy’s implementation is the responsibility of the Member States, it is these that we see committing protectionist fouls in the name of economic patriotism, and this is cause for considerable concern.
Those who imagine that we could achieve ‘more Lisbon’ or become more competitive with less of an internal market have either lost their grip on reality or are being dishonest. Europe’s economic success over the last fifty years was founded upon the four freedoms of the internal market, three of which are now in acute danger. This began two years ago when, among others, Germany and Austria imposed restrictions on the mobility of labour from the Member States in the east of the EU. It now turns out that countries that did not interfere in labour mobility, such as Great Britain, can testify to the benefits of this.
Let us consider the free movement of capital. Italy is forbidding the purchase of interests in Italian banks; Poland is opposing the merger of UniCredit and HBV; the French and the Spanish are resisting the takeover of domestic energy suppliers. That is particularly ironic in view of the fact that it is in the energy sector that a European approach is called for, for are we to believe that we can have a common energy policy without an internal market in energy? The Commission’s unambiguous words on this subject are much to be welcomed, and it is to be hoped that the Council will follow its recommendations.
The third freedom, of the provision of services, is also at risk. What the watering-down of the Services Directive perpetrated by Germany, Belgium and France means is nothing more or less than that the division of labour in this area is not yet forthcoming. Were this to apply to the movement of goods, it would mean, for example, that Renault would be allowed to export its cars to Germany only if they were, once there, to cost no more or less than a Volkswagen. And what are we to think of Skoda? Workers in Mladá Boleslav earn less than their counterparts who assemble Audis or Citroëns; is that social dumping too? The logical consequence of the trade unions’ arguments on the services directive is that they should call for punitive customs duties on industrial products from Member States where wages are lower, and it is only a matter of time before they do that. I might add that, if you consider the issue consistently, the demands made of the new Member States that they should increase their taxes on enterprises amount to precisely the same thing.
Lisbon is no more an end in itself than is the internal market. What is needed at the heart of the continent of Europe is new growth, and more of it, if the millions of unemployed are to have new hope for the future. Giving them that is a matter of obligation – politically, socially, and, in the final analysis, morally. Jeopardising the internal market is a sin against the unemployed of Europe, to whom we have obligations, in that it is for their sakes, for the sake of the weakest members of our society, that we have to make Lisbon a success. The same is true in the case of older people; this House’s resolution stresses the significance of demographic change, and both the elderly of today and those of tomorrow merit our attention. Growth is what is needed to stabilise our social security systems; redistribution alone will not do the job. I would like to add that I believe we should be conducting this debate in Brussels rather than in Strasbourg."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples