Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-09-07-Speech-2-012"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100907.4.2-012"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the agenda item is entitled ‘Statement by the President of the Commission on the State of the Union’. Today, we have heard about a work programme, and an ambitious and committed one. We have heard little about a stocktake, about the actual state of the Union. What then is the state of the Union today? The state of the Union is not good. It would have been a good thing if, in your stocktake, you could have gone into why it is not good.
In August, the Guardian published statistics which revealed that HSBC, Barclays Bank and the Royal Bank of Scotland made more than EUR 20 billion in profit last year, EUR 9 billion of which they are putting aside as bonuses for their managers. This is happening at a time when the governments in the European Union are cutting pensions in Europe. I expect you to come up with proposals for how we can eliminate this social divide.
I therefore say to you that the financial transaction tax must be put in place. We must involve the banks, particularly the speculation sector, in the aftermath of the economic crisis. We have concluded an interinstitutional agreement, Mr Barroso, to the effect that, if this Parliament, with a legislative majority, calls on the Commission to submit a corresponding proposal for a directive, you have agreed that you will do so. You can be sure that the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament will make such a request. We also expect you then to take the appropriate initiative.
Mr Šemeta said that we do not need, and we will not get, a financial transaction tax. You say: ‘I want the financial transaction tax’. We say that we will support Mr Barroso against Mr Šemeta; they will get this request. If you do not do this, we will utilise the instrument of the citizens’ initiative. Please believe that! Then we will bring these people that I am talking about onto the street, until the speculators have made their contribution to sorting out the finances in Europe.
Europe also needs education, qualifications and opportunities for advancement. Someone who is born poor in this Union must not remain in the ghetto in which he lives. We need opportunities for advancement. For these opportunities, it is important that Europe plays its part in contributing to education, qualifications and equal opportunities for young people in particular. I therefore think you are right: these uninspired European finance ministers who, because they need to reduce the excessive debt in their own countries and are therefore cutting the budgets, are saying that the EU budget must therefore also be cut, are wrong. The EU does not need to balance out an excessive deficit. With the investments that it makes, it needs to use regional policy, social policy, research and qualifications and investment in growth-stimulating measures to help to even out the social imbalance and to put the European Union in a position to be able to do that. For this, we need a strong EU budget. You said the same thing today. In this, you have our support. So now show your opposition to Mrs Lagarde, Mr Schäuble and the finance ministers of other countries! If you need help in this, Mr Barroso, please give us a call. We will come to help you.
Social justice also means that we must not leave the next generation a continent in which it is no longer worth living. You are right, therefore: for social justice, we also need a new, sustainable industrial policy that combines environmental and economic concerns. This is the right approach.
I am eager to see whether you manage to ensure that the disaster, the fiasco of Copenhagen is not repeated – a situation in which we saw that the European Union was not capable of negotiation. That is not the fault of the Commission, I will say that again. It is the fault of the 27 governments, which were simply not able to agree at an international level.
It is not good, partly because you, Mr Barroso, and your Commission, are not adequately performing the essential roles ascribed to you in the treaties. During the crisis, I have often asked myself ‘Where is the Commission?’, and then when I speak to you, you say: ‘Yes, I have made a statement on that and I have issued a press statement on this and Mr Šefčovič said something about that and Mrs Reding about this!’ When I go back and read it, then yes, it is true, the Commission has indeed made a statement. However, I have to ask myself: Why is the message not getting through? Why is the public not hearing it? That is a stocktake of the state of the Union! For during your period of office, you have been making concessions for far too long, particularly after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, concessions to a developing directorial government in Europe, in the Council, under German-French leadership.
This shows that, in the situation that we are in today, there are two opposing schools: one advocating intergovernmentalism and one the Community method. Following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, it is a question of whether the Lisbon Europe is a Europe of the Heads of State or Government who discuss what they believe to be right for the continent behind closed doors. We saw this during the crisis in Greece. The final document was negotiated by just two people, Mrs Merkel and Mr Sarkozy, and their approach was: Mr Van Rompuy, please wait outside, leave this to us! I do not know whether what has been said about this is true, but we can almost imagine that it is. Either this Europe is a Europe of intergovernmentalism, or it is a Europe of the Community method. The Europe of the Community method is the Europe of the Commission and of the European Parliament, working together.
I found your stocktake incomplete. I found most of your perspectives and the announcements to be good and proper. In a year’s time at the next report on the state of the Union, we will measure you by what you have announced today and by what, by then, you have managed to fight for. The speech that you gave was a conservative-liberal, green, radical socialist one. Something for everyone.
Thus, you can also gain support from everyone. If you fight against the insidious intergovernmentalisation and if you actively defend the Community approach, then you can count on us. If not, we will bring you to account at the time of the next report on the state of the Union.
It is your job to defend the Community method. Much of what you have said here in your address is right, and you can be assured of the support of three quarters of this House. This is the case. However, you will have three quarters of the members of the Council against you if you talk about own resources. I am now eager to see whether you follow what you have said today with action and take up the fight against the intergovernmentalisation of the European Union.
I will give you an example. I agree with you that Europe will only succeed if we defend our elementary values. The elementary values in Europe include no racism and no xenophobia. That is something that we all agree on. However, they also include the fact that a government that is subject to internal political pressure must not attempt to use a witch hunt against minorities as a solution. We can name names here. It is the government of Nicolas Sarkozy, François Fillon and Brice Hortefeux. I would have liked you to have mentioned the names, as then we would have seen that you, Mr Barroso, are taking up the fight.
Above all, the basic values of the European Union – and much of what you said in this regard is right – include social justice. However, what is social justice in this Union? You described the dramatic growth in unemployment in Europe. This growth in unemployment will lead to a process of mass impoverishment and to a risk scenario for people. More and more people – including those still in work – are afraid: afraid for their jobs, afraid for their social stability and afraid for their future. This needs to be illustrated with figures. On the one hand, we have an increasing number of income millionaires – there are thousands more every year – and, on the other, we have millions of people who are being reduced to poverty. This social divide is the greatest threat to democracy in Europe."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples