Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-04-22-Speech-3-065"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090422.5.3-065"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spokenAs | |
lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, this is the second time that we have had to increase the guarantee provided by the European Union to overcome the difficulties of its members, non-members of the euro zone. This is the second time: we already increased it in December.
Mr McCreevy has congratulated us on the promptness of our action. We already acted promptly in December, and we should like to say to Mr McCreevy, as Mrs Berès did a moment ago, that the lift …
Yes, Mr McCreevy, please? Please? Commissioner …
... We should like reciprocity to be applied, by which I mean that, when Parliament asks you to submit a draft on the regulation of hedge funds, you respond to us immediately, and in the same timeframe that we apply when you ask us to increase aid for the protection of the balances of payments.
We are indeed in a crisis; we may not need to sit every day, but at least let us not have to wait six months from the European Parliament’s requesting a directive on hedge funds to the Commission complying!
Clearly, then, as far as this aid is concerned, we fully agree on the need to increase this credit line, and I am slightly surprised by Mr Becsey’s remarks. We had exactly the same discussion in December. Commissioner Almunia explained to Mr Becsey that it was the Hungarian Government itself that had requested aid from the IMF, but not from the European Union, and that it was the European Union that said: ‘But we too can help you’.
It is quite clear that the European Union has a duty to show solidarity towards countries outside the euro zone, but there is also no reason why IMF aid, to which each of us, Hungary and Romania included, contribute, should be turned down.
Thus, in the Berès report – which we shall, in any case, vote for – there are two things that bother us. Firstly, what is the point of saying in paragraph 4 that we must commit ourselves to inter-country solidarity only to then point out in paragraph 11 that under no circumstances are we bound by a country’s commitments? It is true that we are not bound by a country’s commitments, but there is no use in pointing this out when we say that we will show solidarity with one another.
The second problem is the assertion that there is no legal basis to increase this solidarity, but it is precisely the responsibility of the Commission to provide this legal basis. We are in a crisis, and it is high time we were given a legal basis."@en1
|
lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples