Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-10-21-Speech-2-085"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081021.7.2-085"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, first of all, it was entirely natural for Mr Schulz to respond. As I understand it, he was doing so in a personal capacity. My dear Martin, if I hurt you by comparing you to a French Socialist, I regret it.
You also mentioned the need for European economic governance and a European economic plan. You are right to do so, but I should like, in connection with your speech, to challenge the claim, not made by you, equating any European economic initiative with an increase in the deficit. Emphatically, enough is enough. We have the right to speak freely. It is possible to be in favour of a European economic policy without favouring an increase in the deficit, and we will not be able to coordinate European policies simply by means of a revival on request.
We – I am not saying ‘you’ – must not put words in each other’s mouths like we did, back in the day, with those who dared to have an opinion on monetary policy: it is possible to advocate a different monetary policy without bringing into question the independence of the ECB. I will say it: it is possible to be in favour of a European structural economic policy without favouring an increase in the deficit. Let us stop saying that some are right and some are wrong. Far from it, the European debate must be a real debate, and nobody has a monopoly on the truth.
From time to time, we need to step away – and this may be the only point on which I agree with Mr de Villiers – we sometimes need to step away from the dogmas that have so damaged the idea of Europe, dogmas that have even less legitimacy given that they often do not result from decisions made by democratic, and thus legitimate, bodies. My own European ideal is strong enough for European democracy to be a true democracy. Groupthink, dogmas, habits and conservatism have done a great deal of damage, and I will take the opportunity to say more on that in relation to another subject.
Mr Szymański, I should like to say that I understand full well Poland’s problems, particularly the dependence, up to 95%, of its economy on coal, but I think that Poland needs Europe in order to modernise its mining industry and that we can perfectly well reach agreements with Poland on clean coal. What is more, in order to modernise its mining industry, Poland needs the whole of Europe. We need Poland, and Poland needs Europe. It is on this basis that we, along with Mr Barroso, are going to seek a compromise with our Polish and Hungarian friends and some of those who have concerns about their growth.
Mr de Villiers, I have, as you say, overturned dogmas, because I believe in being pragmatic, but, honestly, do not ascribe to Lisbon, to the treaty, shortcomings that it does not have. I am in a position to know that the Treaty of Lisbon is not a miracle. It is not perfect, but, apart from in the Vendée, Mr de Villiers, there is no such thing as perfection, particularly when we are bringing together 27 countries with different governments and different histories. You need to give up on the ideal treaty – you know full well that it will never exist. Europeans are pragmatists, sensible people who would prefer an imperfect treaty that makes things better to a perfect treaty that will never exist, because there will never be an agreement on this intangible idea.
That is what Europe is all about: making progress every day, because we wanted to bring an end to war and because we want to create an area of democracy. I think, Mr de Villiers, that you should turn your mind to a different fight, because this one appears to consist in your creating an imaginary enemy when it is quite clear, in the current crisis, that the people of Europe understand that working together is a strength, not a weakness. Even somebody as strong and as talented as you will be powerless to face this financial crisis alone. It would be better to achieve a proper compromise with the whole of Europe than to sit on your own in a corner, knowing that you are right.
On the subject of having a ‘free hand’, Mr de Villiers, my response applies to you, it is the response of a free man, including in French political debate. And I think that the most important thing for us is to stop waffling, and I think that good compromises can be reached by sincere people who follow through on their ideas and that the problem with European political debate is a lack of ideas, which has affected all of us, all the political groups, as if we were paralysed at the idea of coming up with something new. When Europe has moved forward, it has been because, at a given point, men and women have cleared new ground; and the self-criticism for which you were calling is something that we should all undertake. For a long time, we in Europe have acted as if we were immovable objects. We followed the founding fathers, but we did not follow their example: we did not clear new paths, or come up with new ideas. I firmly believe that, at this point, we need to show some imagination, because, in the end, the greatest risk comes from not doing anything, today, and from not being bold when faced with a completely new situation.
Mr Kozlík, transparency is absolutely vital. On the issue of rating agencies, I think that it is the attitude of the rating agencies that has been the most scandalous part of the crisis. These agencies rated products ‘triple A’ on Friday, and then downgraded them to ‘triple B’ on Monday. We cannot carry on with this monopoly of three rating agencies, most of which are American. The issue of the rating agencies, of their independence in relation to certain groups, and of the existence of a European rating agency will certainly be one of the crucial issues at the first summit on future regulation. On the subject of competition, I should like to say to you – to all of you who spoke about competition – that I believe in competition, but I have had enough of people who want to make it an end in itself, when in truth it is simply a means to an end. Competition is a means to growth; it is not an end in itself, and I will make every effort to bring this concept back into the new European policy.
I believe in freedom, I believe in free trade, and I believe that we should reject protectionism, but competition must be a means for growth. Competition as an objective, as an end in itself, is a mistake: I thought so before the crisis, and I still think so after the crisis.
Mr García-Margallo, you are right that we need a new Bretton Woods, because, as Mr Daul and Mr Schulz said just now, there is no point holding an international summit if all we are going to do is apply sticking plasters. If we are going to change half the system, it is not worth it.
You mentioned accounting standards, but take a look at our banks. To start with, the dictatorship of the US accounting standards has become intolerable. Secondly, the amount that the banks can lend depends on their own funds and assets. If we look at assets using mark-to-market, on the basis of a market that no longer exists, having been completely destabilised, we will impoverish the banks, which will consequently be even less able to do their job. The question of changing accounting standards, as raised by the President of the Commission, had our full support – it was a matter of urgency. I should also like, Mr President, to pay tribute to the European Parliament’s responsiveness in being able to vote for this change, because we reached unanimity in the codecision procedure with startling speed, which the European Council welcomed.
Mr Rasmussen, could we have avoided the crisis? Before we can decide that, we need to agree on what caused it. What happened? The United States of America, our allies and our friends, have been living beyond their means for the past three decades. The Federal Reserve Bank pursued a monetary policy that involved keeping interest rates extraordinarily low, which made funds available to anyone who wanted to borrow. For the last 20 or 30 years, we have been carrying with us the astonishing debts of the world’s greatest power, and it is now up to the whole world to settle those debts.
Under those circumstances, the Americans need to shoulder their responsibilities and accept the consequences with us, but I do not see how we, on our own, could have told them to put a stop to this strategy. I would add that some of our banks are no longer doing their job: a bank’s job is to lend to individuals and to businesses, to support individuals with the growth of their families and to support businesses with the growth of their projects, and to earn money after a given period. Our banks have developed in what they call the trading rooms, which are places of speculation, and they considered for years that it was easier to earn money by speculating than by investing.
I would add that the mutualisation of risks has meant that all our banks behave themselves. There are 8 000 banks in Europe, 44 of which operate internationally. If we had taken the responsibility of allowing a bank to fail, as occurred in the US with Lehman Brothers, the whole of the system would have collapsed. I do not know how we could have avoided the crisis, Mr Rasmussen, but I think that, if we had not responded as we did, the crisis would have buried us: that is something I believe quite strongly.
You say that we need proposals before Christmas, but actually we need them before mid-November. I do indeed intend, with President Barroso, to take initiatives to ensure that we, as Europeans, go to the summit with one voice, attempting one more thing, Mr Rasmussen: we need to agree not on the lowest common denominator, but on the highest, because any consensus entails the risk that, in trying to force an artificial agreement, we may scale back our ambitions. It is a risk. I hope that we will remain ambitious, and not scale back our ambitions too much, but still speak with one voice.
I will not go back over hedge funds; I have already said that they need to be regulated. No financial institution, be it public or private, should escape regulation.
Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck, you asked whether discussions with Russia will continue regardless of events. Of course not, but put yourself in our place. Russia stopped its tanks 40 km outside Tbilisi, as we in Europe had asked it to. Russia withdrew its troops back over the borders from before the crisis of 8 August. Russia allowed observers to be deployed, most notably European observers, and Russia, albeit with rather bad grace, is going to the Geneva discussions. If, given all that, we suspend the EU-Russia summit, who will be able to understand Europe’s policy? No one.
I would add that, along with President Barroso, we have taken the precaution of not suspending, but postponing the summit. What is the difference? If we had decided to suspend the summit, we would have needed a unanimous decision from the European Council to resume, and in my opinion that would have been politically embarrassing. The decision to postpone it allows us to resume without giving out gold stars that are not deserved. I therefore believe that this strategy shows composure, and is calm and lucid. I do not think we could have done anything else, and I remain convinced that Russia will be a partner with which we can have dialogue, with which we can be frank, but we can only encourage them to develop if we talk to them. If, on the other hand, we do not talk, Russia will feel that it is surrounded, and our ideas will be less influential. I am convinced of this but, of course, I may be proven wrong by future events. It is therefore a question of accepting our responsibilities.
Mr Wojciechowski, it is not up to the President-in-Office of the Council to decide who should represent Poland. Poland had two seats at the European Council, and it was up to Poland to decide who should be in them. Imagine a Europe in which the President of the European Council said, ‘no, you cannot come in, and you can’. What sort of Europe would that be? Poland has a president – whom you clearly do not support – and it has a prime minister; it is up to them to act as statesmen and as Europeans to decide who should represent Poland. In the end, we managed to get through it, and at the beginning of December I will have the opportunity to go to Poland, where I will tell the Polish President: ‘You must keep your promise. You promised to sign the Treaty of Lisbon, which your parliament ratified, and you must keep this promise.’ That is the credibility of a statesman and a politician.
In my mind, it was not an insult, but I freely admit that the important thing is what the addressee thinks. Therefore, Mr Pöttering, I withdraw my remark. Mr Schulz is also able to speak like a French Socialist.
I believe strongly enough in Poland’s importance in Europe to say so without anyone taking offence.
Mr Martin, we need a bold European democracy. I am aware of your campaign, your campaign against corruption and for a fully-functioning democracy. You are absolutely right, but I can tell you that, with President Barroso, we have shown that we can be bold. Moreover, there are even people in this Chamber who felt that I was moving without a mandate. If I had to wait until I had a mandate to move, I would certainly move less often.
Mrs Sudre, thank you, too, for your support. Europe does exist now, and you are quite right that the
is not an option. I think that is something on which we can all agree. The worst possible outcome would be if, once the storm had passed, we carried on as if nothing had happened. That would mean the end of the European ideal, and we do not have the right to let this opportunity pass us by.
So, then, some people are surprised: why are we holding a summit so quickly? This is why. It is because we said to ourselves that, if we waited too long, particularly if we waited until the new US President were elected, the situation could continue to worsen and we would have no answer. Or else the situation would improve, and then, by next spring, everybody would have forgotten about it and nothing would change. We therefore needed to hold the summit, or at any rate the first one, in November, regardless of the timetable in the US.
Ladies and gentlemen, I think I have responded to everyone who spoke. I am also bound by the Presidency’s timetable and the press conference that I have to give with the President of the Commission and the President of the European Parliament. I should like to apologise to the other speakers if I have not responded to everybody. It is not, of course, because I do not want to, but because I have been asked to stick to the arrangements for the day. I have tried my best, and I will, of course, have the opportunity to return to your Parliament in December, if you wish, to respond at greater length to the questions of everyone who takes the floor.
Mr Nassauer, thank you for your support. Yes, we need the Treaty of Lisbon and, to speak my mind, I will fight to the very last minute of the French Presidency to convince people of the need for Europe to develop institutions for the 21st century. A politician is somebody who shoulders his responsibilities. I supported the Lisbon process and I will fight to ensure that the Lisbon process reaches its conclusion; and I would reiterate one thing: if we do not have Lisbon, we will have Nice, and if we have Nice, that is an end to new enlargements, which would be deeply regrettable. Let us hope, then, that everybody will shoulder their responsibilities.
Mr Nassauer, I take your point that much work is needed on the climate change package. I am well aware of that, but we must not give up on our ambitions, for I am convinced that it is easier to reach a compromise on a big ambition than on a small one. A really ambitious proposal will be easier to reach a compromise on than a more limited proposal, and it would a mistake if, in trying to please everybody, we ended up with a completely incomprehensible European policy. We must be aware of this risk.
Mr Goebbels, you talked about plumbing and architecture, and, indeed, I am counting on Luxembourg’s support so that the financial architecture can be fundamentally redesigned both within and outside our continent.
However, Mr Goebbels, this is not a criticism, far less an attack: it is simply a comment.
Mrs De Sarnez put it very well: we cannot fight against certain practices outside our continent, and yet tolerate them within it. That is all. Those who think they are being targeted are really assuming a lot; I myself am not targeting anyone in particular, and I would not dream of doing so.
Mrs De Sarnez, thank you for saying that we have taken the right decisions. May I say, personally, that I support your proposal for a European regulator: it makes sense. Why can we not manage it straight away? It is because certain smaller countries think that, by defending their own system of regulation, they are defending their national identity. I am not blaming anybody. Therefore, Mrs De Sarnez, my view is that, at the end of the day, we will need a European regulator and that, in the meantime, we at least need to establish coordination between European regulators. That is the route that we are proposing, with the Commission, and I think that it is the only realistic one, because otherwise we will reach an impasse."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples