Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-31-Speech-3-029"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060531.9.3-029"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I should like, if I may, to make a preliminary remark, since we are inaugurating a series of new-style debates today. I believe that it is impossible to respond seriously, in three or four minutes, to an
speech that lasts three quarters of an hour and that is also in-depth. In my opinion, the procedure needs to be revised.
I have a great deal to say about some of the ideas put forward by Mr Verhofstadt. For example, about the idea of putting the Union’s crisis down mainly to a question of method, which is not federal enough in his opinion, by choosing to overlook the content of the economic and social decisions taken. That is an analysis that I regard as inadequate and that my group does not support. Or, indeed, about the idea of introducing, in the name of a form of social and economic governance, maximum social levels alongside the minimum levels that already exist. I do not really understand his reasoning, which seems to me, in any case, to be heading in the wrong direction. I have a great deal to say, too, about Mr Verhofstadt’s appeal for a military Europe and for that military Europe to be thoroughly integrated into NATO, an appeal with which we do not associate ourselves.
I will not be able to expand on these various points now, because I would like to address another point that I feel Mr Verhofstadt glossed over. It concerns what is, in my opinion, our main problem today: I am referring to the reasons for the widening gap between Europeans and the Union. The results of the Commission’s consultation do reveal to us, however, some precious information about the cause of this disaffection, and I should like to mention three examples.
Firstly, 47% of the people polled as part of this consultation see globalisation as a threat to jobs. In October 2003, 56% regarded globalisation as a good opportunity; 20% fewer of them think the same today. Yet, in October 2003, Europe was no more federal than it is today. Here is another result: what do the people polled think about the role played by the European Union in fifteen or so areas ranging from environmental protection to the fight against terrorism, via social policy, with the protection of social rights only appearing at the end of the list? They gave these areas a satisfaction rating of 4.7 out of 10. That has nothing to do with the Union’s being more or less federal.
As regards Europe's ability to combat unemployment, which was consigned to the bottom of the list, the satisfaction rating is 3.8 out of 10. This figure, I would point out, is the average across the 25 Member States. How would you rate the educational performance of a pupil scoring 3.8 out of 10 in a core subject? That is how people perceive Europe's current ability to deal with the problems linked to globalisation. I believe that that is the main problem. We cannot cleverly sidestep it.
Finally, what, in the eyes of most of the Europeans polled, is – and I quote – ‘the key element for the future of Europe’? The most popular answer: to achieve comparable living standards throughout the Union. That is the opinion of 51% of those polled in the 25 countries and of as many as 74% in the new Member States. Our new fellow citizens obviously have no desire for their countries to form a kind of low-cost or cut-price Europe, which business communities long for.
To summarise, globalisation is perceived as a threat to the social model, and the single market is not seen as an answer to this fundamental problem. These concerns will not be alleviated by the project of a barrier-free transatlantic market, which is on the agenda of the next European Union-United States summit. Sidelining this section of the debate once again will not help us, in my opinion, to break the deadlock. It is only by accepting real changes, not only institutional ones, but also ones related to economic, social and political lines of action, that we will have the opportunity to breathe life back into the European dream."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples