Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-11-23-Speech-2-410"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101123.37.2-410"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Presidents, I believe that if we listen carefully to what everyone is saying, we are at a turning point in the history of the European Union. The problem with the budget today, as everyone has said in his or her own way, is a problem to do with the idea of the development of the European idea. It is not just a budget. What is more, there is something amiss in the idea of the European Union, and it is always apparent in public debates.
We are witnessing the renationalisation – the completely absurd renationalisation – of European activities. Why? Because – and we are all saying it – you want the European Union to successfully resolve problems that you are no longer able to resolve at national level but, at the same time, you want to give the resources for the task not to the European Parliament, but to the European Union.
That is why we say that we are not defending Parliament’s rights, but only the rights of the European Union and the need for the European Union. That is why whereas, today, we are agreeing on three points, we actually need to agree on one thing, here, together: whether to take it or leave it. Moreover, even if it takes two, three or four months – and it will be tough for everyone – we shall approve the European budget only if there is an agreement on the points we are raising.
Let us not be afraid, then, if it takes a long time and if, as may happen, we do not vote on the budget in December, or even in January or February. If we launch this debate but stop halfway through, we will lose out for the next four years.
I therefore call on everyone to be responsible with regard to own resources, and Mr Verhofstadt has explained this. It is, after all, quite simple, and that is why Mr Lamassoure’s idea of an agreement is interesting, because debates must be held in the European public arena with the national parliaments, with government representatives and with Commissioners. Own resources represent an opportunity to reduce – I shall say it three times – to reduce – that time, it was for the benefit of all the conservatives – to reduce national contributions and, at the same time, to strengthen the European budget. After all, it is not complicated!
Therefore, if we can get that message across in the European area, the people of Europe will agree with us. I repeat: we need to reduce national contributions and strengthen the European budget. Yes, there will be European taxes, indeed there will, but the austerity measures you are currently introducing at national level will be disastrous for you anyway, because we have known for years that austerity kills economic momentum and ultimately achieves nothing. I therefore beg you: let us not cripple Europe, because the governments are already crippling their own economies at home.
My final comment concerns Ireland. Ireland symbolises the failure of neoliberalism; it symbolises the failure of deregulation. For years, with Mr Griffith, you have been driving us mad with your ‘deregulate, deregulate, reduce corporation tax’. Well, have you got it yet? This is an economic disaster, and now what is the Irish Government doing? It is crying ‘Mummy, mummy, Europe, help us!’"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples