Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-11-14-Speech-3-017"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071114.2.3-017"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I think that what we have seen in this particular communication is an absolute failure of imagination, given the seriousness of the situation that we face.
And we need to look at the social inclusion side again. The gender pay gap is still there. We still need a liveable wage, and flexicurity has to take into account financial security for individuals.
We still need to integrate Lisbon and Gothenburg. That is the challenge. This document does not face up to it and I am not convinced Parliament does either.
We have in this no real definition of globalisation. It normally relates to the economic side – that is what I want to talk about.
This paper talks about us facing a third industrial revolution. I think we need to learn some of the lessons from the past industrial revolutions. Those that have not taken environmental costs fully into account; those that have not taken social costs fully into account. There is an assumption that low commodity costs are going to continue, often on the back of the world’s poorest countries; that we can trade in countries where we force open markets when social infrastructure and a sound public sector are not in place; that we need to beware the siren of reciprocity if it is not amongst equals. There are also instances where we have overestimated the role of the markets in delivering social goals, and there are issues surrounding economic consolidation, especially when this is based on a debt economy and speculation rather than on reality and thus becomes highly dangerous for economic stability.
The new context that we face is not just about climate change. It is about peak oil and what that will do to developing countries’ opportunities; it is about meeting the Millennium Development Goals.
It is true we need to rebalance trade, the social dimension and the environmental dimension. The WTO prioritises trade over production methods, over anything else that gives us the right to say that we have problems with the way in which goods are produced because this does not meet our standards. We chose not to write that into the rules.
If we are looking at growth, we are still talking as if the quantity is what matters, not the quality and not what is actually growing within our societies. I welcome the Commission’s conference on this next week, but this is work that should have been going on for years.
What are we going to do with our agricultural sector? With our tourism sectors? With so many others in the face of climate change? We do not agree that we do not need to revisit the guidelines and to revise them. We think we do.
If we are talking about training and education, the sustainable development strategy now demands that we look at that within the context of climate change and environmental progress. I have heard no real, serious link on that. There is no European strategy on that at all.
If we are talking about a low-carbon economy, how are we going to deliver that? There is nothing within this paper to give us any great confidence on those issues."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples