Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-02-19-Speech-2-266"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080219.30.2-266"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioners Almunia and Verheugen, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for this debate. The Lisbon Strategy is a strategy for reform and modernisation; it needs cooperation, support and ideas from everyone working to the common end and I am truly grateful for your well-founded remarks.
Much was said about the environment. I think we are aware that, as someone said, it must become a ‘win-win’ situation for Europe. The problem is how to get the rest of the world to join us in our efforts to convert to a low-carbon economy, although we can certainly contribute by our example.
We have an excellent interlocutor in the field of financial markets and fiscal policies. I apologise that I did not notice you and greet you at the beginning. To sum up, we are leaving enriched by some important information. I would like to thank Mrs Starkevičiūtė for the report and Mr Lehne and Mrs Harms for the draft resolution. We have already studied it. We will carefully review the final version as well.
The opinions expressed in this Parliament are varied, but it seems to me that they are pointing in the same direction as the Lisbon documents, that is to say the overall package. I am convinced that we are on the right path and will successfully launch a new phase to meet today’s challenges, and that the message of the new phase will not just be that of the lowest common denominator on which we are capable of agreeing.
Firstly, as a general comment, the effectiveness of the Lisbon Strategy has been debated. Some MEPs, like Mr Andersson, thought it was effective, while others – and there were a fair number of them – thought it was not. This points to a spectrum of political views within the European Union. Mrs Starkevičiūtė asked about the Lisbon Strategy priorities and whether they had been given sufficient exposure. The answer actually came from Mr Harbour, who said that the Community Lisbon Programme was an excellent set of priorities.
Many questions pertained to the integrated guidelines and whether they solved current issues. As I have said, we were also wondering about that and we came to the conclusion that we must continue in the same direction and preserve the continuity and most of all the tempo of implementation of the Lisbon Strategy. I was pleased that some parliamentary groups and Members of Parliament thought likewise. Mr Leinen, Mr Harbour and Mrs Herczog stressed that what was needed was implementation and not ideas, especially at a time when optimism for the European Strategy was waning.
Other good procedural ideas have been pointed out, for example the exchange of best practices, the territorial dimension, and extension of the Lisbon Strategy beyond the framework of the Community and the Member States, possibly to lower levels. The Lisbon Strategy is also extending globally.
As regards research and development, you agreed that this is precisely where Europe’s future lies. I liked Mrs Herczog’s suggestion that hearts and minds are needed just as much as numbers. I understand your support for the fifth freedom and the European patent relating to it. We take the warning about European talent seriously. It is necessary to secure good conditions for talented people in Europe. 700 000 of the best European research engineers are abroad. We must endeavour to attract them back, because 7 out of 10 who go to the USA remain there. Studies abroad should be encouraged.
As far as the business environment is concerned, some of you advocated the internal market without protectionism, that is to say that an efficient market is what gives Europe a competitive advantage. I like the ideas on enterprise culture, namely the promotion of enterprise, that to establish a new company or create a new job is the best thing one can do. The fact is that we must improve many things in this area, primarily for the development of small and medium companies and their access to finances and research infrastructure. Mrs Kauppi and Mrs Starkevičiūtė gave a report on this topic.
Employment and the whole of the social dimension were main topics of a number of discussions. I do not agree that the Lisbon Strategy is neoliberal; on the contrary, Europe’s care of man and the environment forms two of the four major pillars of the Lisbon Strategy.
There was some discussion on ‘flexicurity’, initiated by Mr Goebbels and Mrs Vălean. The fact is that, as somebody remarked, if we do not introduce it, employers will resort to other forms of employment that are very flexible, but considerably less acceptable to the employee. The economic environment is not set up to promote security as well, but the flexible security system does provide it.
The proposals for new indicators are interesting and relate to the OECD quality-of-life indicators. There must also be a debate in the future on ways of assessing the Lisbon Strategy."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples