O que dizem de nós por lá
The Boundless solitude of the Lisbon Strategy
"In essence, Lisbon provided only objectives but neither a strategy nor any particular procedure for tackling them other than the existing implementation procedures for Community policies. In contrast to the two previous major projects – the single market and the single currency – which both necessitated a revision of the Treaties and a transfer of the powers of governance to the European institutions for their achievement, not only was no such action deemed necessary for Lisbon but, worse still, neither of the two Treaty revisions which have occurred since the Lisbon objectives were set (the Treaty of Nice and the Constitutional Treaty) involved any substantial changes to the economic governance procedures of the Union.
The revision of the Stability Pact and the new “Lisbon Strategy” method of governance, which were agreed upon in March 2005 did nothing to change this situation.
The political will expressed concerning the two previous projects continues to be absent from the Lisbon objectives. The message contained in the objectives has not inspired European citizens, despite the obvious benefits they bring. This is because the benefits in question are too self-evident. Questioning the replacement of national currencies with an international currency is both practical and understandable. The same goes, of course, for the replacement of national markets by an international market. Conversely, asking citizens whether they prefer full employment to unemployment, competitiveness to deindustrialisation or the protection of the environment to its destruction is unoriginal and derisory. Nobody of course would disagree but neither would anybody consider you were offering them an important project, especially if you did not also explain how you were going to make it work.
The sorry conclusion is that Lisbon has neither friends nor enemies. It has no direct link to the processes of integration and integrated governance of the European economy. It was not linked to the Union's economic cohesion, it was not linked to the objective of an enhanced Economic Union and it was not linked to the single market and the single currency and presented as the next stage of the same process.
The recent interim revision of the Lisbon Strategy constitutes a more realistic approach to the situation but is also an admission of failure. It discreetly replaces the 2010 objective with three-year programmes. Thus, we shall no longer refer to a project but to a process. It remains to be seen whether or not this process can remove Lisbon from its boundless solitude."
Anna Diamatopoulou in http://www.friendsofeurope.org/
Texto completo aqui
Anna Diamatopoulou is a Trustee of Friends of Europe, a Member of the Greek Parliament and a former EU Commissioner for Employment and Social Affairs.
(enigma)
"In essence, Lisbon provided only objectives but neither a strategy nor any particular procedure for tackling them other than the existing implementation procedures for Community policies. In contrast to the two previous major projects – the single market and the single currency – which both necessitated a revision of the Treaties and a transfer of the powers of governance to the European institutions for their achievement, not only was no such action deemed necessary for Lisbon but, worse still, neither of the two Treaty revisions which have occurred since the Lisbon objectives were set (the Treaty of Nice and the Constitutional Treaty) involved any substantial changes to the economic governance procedures of the Union.
The revision of the Stability Pact and the new “Lisbon Strategy” method of governance, which were agreed upon in March 2005 did nothing to change this situation.
The political will expressed concerning the two previous projects continues to be absent from the Lisbon objectives. The message contained in the objectives has not inspired European citizens, despite the obvious benefits they bring. This is because the benefits in question are too self-evident. Questioning the replacement of national currencies with an international currency is both practical and understandable. The same goes, of course, for the replacement of national markets by an international market. Conversely, asking citizens whether they prefer full employment to unemployment, competitiveness to deindustrialisation or the protection of the environment to its destruction is unoriginal and derisory. Nobody of course would disagree but neither would anybody consider you were offering them an important project, especially if you did not also explain how you were going to make it work.
The sorry conclusion is that Lisbon has neither friends nor enemies. It has no direct link to the processes of integration and integrated governance of the European economy. It was not linked to the Union's economic cohesion, it was not linked to the objective of an enhanced Economic Union and it was not linked to the single market and the single currency and presented as the next stage of the same process.
The recent interim revision of the Lisbon Strategy constitutes a more realistic approach to the situation but is also an admission of failure. It discreetly replaces the 2010 objective with three-year programmes. Thus, we shall no longer refer to a project but to a process. It remains to be seen whether or not this process can remove Lisbon from its boundless solitude."
Anna Diamatopoulou in http://www.friendsofeurope.org/
Texto completo aqui
Anna Diamatopoulou is a Trustee of Friends of Europe, a Member of the Greek Parliament and a former EU Commissioner for Employment and Social Affairs.
(enigma)
1 Comments:
humm o titulo do post é capaz de não estar muito de acordo com o texto. o texto é a expressão de uma opinião relativa à estratégia de Lisboa, _mas_ a estratégia de lisboa n tem nada a ver connosco enquanto portugal. a estratégia, pacto, tratado, linhas orientadores que foram aprovadas numa cimeira em lisboa, definem as linhas orientadores que visam guiar a _europa_ para o desenvolvimento que tanto anseia, apontando para isso um calendário bem definido... Quero portanto dizer que a estratégia podia-se chamar outra coisa qq, é lisboa porque foi aprovado em lisboa... o titulo deveria ser "o que se diz sobre a estratégia de lisboa".
contudo o assunto do post é bastante importante...e devia ser bem debatido na opiniao publica, mas mais uma vez aqui se mostra como estamos em relação às questões europeias.
[posidon]
Enviar um comentário
<< Home