Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-09-15-Speech-2-152"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090915.18.2-152"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, since the start of this appointment procedure, as you know, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe has said that what is at stake here is the programme for the next five years, that this is not a question of people or of personalities. This is what counts: the programme that the candidate presents, the one that he presents now in its broad outlines, then the detailed programme, which will be presented towards the end of the year, I hope, when the Commission is finalised.
That is why, for the common good of Europe, we need more audacity and a more ambitious Commission, and we hope that you will ensure this and hope, too, that in your definitive programme you will fulfil our expectations.
Secondly, at the request of some of my colleagues, our group has also debated at length whether we should wait before taking a final decision. We supported that in July, because we felt it necessary for the candidate to come equipped with a programme, which was not the case in the past. I believe that it was the right decision to do so, to wait in July, not to appoint and to wait for the proposals that we are going to debate now. However, we felt that, once the candidate had presented his guidelines, there was no point in saying once again that we were going to wait a few weeks or months.
We are going through an economic and financial crisis, therefore we need European institutions and we need a Commission. It is not very responsible …
... It is not very responsible to say today, ‘Let us wait’. Wait for what? Wait two weeks, three weeks, two months, until they come with proposals? They are there. Let us assume our responsibilities, whether we vote for or against, but let us assume our responsibilities.
Thirdly, we were not very convinced by the guidelines presented by the candidate. I believe that these proposals, as detailed as they sometimes are, are based on a flawed philosophy, that is, on the assumption that the recession is over, that a recovery is taking place and that we do not need additional Community policies in order to come out of the crisis. That is a poor starting point, because the end of the recession does not mean that this is the start of the recovery. We may fall into economic stagnation, as is the case in Japan, where they have been waiting for growth for 10 to 15 years. Hence the need to have, in addition, a new integrated Community strategy that goes beyond the 27 national plans. That is the demand we are making as liberals and as democrats, and it is just as important for the Commission to present as quickly as possible a plan for cleaning up the banks. Not 27 different plans, as we have today, but a common, consistent approach set out by the Commission.
I heard, Mr Barroso, that you said in our group that you were prepared to submit proposals concerning both this new integrated Community strategy, which goes beyond the 27 national plans, and this European stabilisation of the banking sector. This is positive, and what we are asking is for these two elements to be detailed and developed in the programme that you are now going to prepare and that you are going to present with the Commission.
Our support is very clear. It is conditional. This means that our support will continue until such time as we see that these elements, that is, a new integrated Community strategy, a plan for stabilising the banking sector, beyond the things you repeated today in your speech, a budget based on own resources, and a mid-term review of financial supervision, are going to materialise in every part of the Commission’s programme. On this subject, I must tell you that I continue to believe that it is the structure of the European Central Bank that should be used, not the de Larosière proposals, which are the Commission’s and the Council’s starting point for the moment.
Lastly, our support will also depend, as you know, on the new structure of the Commission. We want an effective Commission, with powers distributed more evenly than was the case in the past and, in this context, we are also counting on the promise that you made to our group, namely that a particular commissioner from the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, with responsibility for fundamental rights and civil liberties, will be given a place in your team. It is important that this commissioner be jointly responsible with the other commissioners, and not just someone who gives them opinions."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples