Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-03-08-Speech-2-505-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110308.25.2-505-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, there were some specific questions about Portugal, which I will answer. Whether or not Portugal should resort to the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) is a decision for the Portuguese authorities. It is a sovereign decision for Portugal precisely because it has to do with sovereign debt. What I can tell you, obviously, is that recourse to the EFSF and to International Monetary Fund aid was seen to be a last resort:
. It is obvious that if a country can avoid recourse to this mechanism, it should do so, as recourse to these rescue funds has costs, and not only in terms of reputation. Therefore, if a country is able, it should be avoided. However, I would repeat that it is a decision for the national authorities whether or not to resort to this rescue fund, or at least to request its activation.
Therefore, what we are saying does matter. The hopes that we are creating do matter. The Commission therefore owes it to itself to be ambitious and, at the same time, to be responsible in making its proposals, while knowing that they have, at least, a chance of coming to fruition, that it is not merely the case of a publicity stunt followed by a feeling of disappointment. That is what I want to avoid and that is what the Commission must avoid. We must avoid disappointment, or purely division, whether within the euro area, or even throughout the European Union.
That is why I can assure you that the Commission will keep its ambitions high. The Commission is currently telling all governments that Parliament must be involved in this competitiveness pact. The Commission is currently telling governments that it must retain a central role in this competitiveness pact, not out of institutional loyalty, not out of institutional egotism, but because I believe, needless to say, that the Commission, along with the Community approach, are a guarantee if we want to avoid divisions between the euro area and the rest of Europe. They are the guarantee if we want to avoid attacks on the integrity of the single market, or if we want to avoid calling into question other mechanisms such as the Stability and Growth Pact. They are the guarantee, indeed, that we remain European within the framework of the European Union with European solidarity.
Therefore, I was extremely frank and extremely open. The Commission carries out its work in utter transparency, constructively of course, trying to save an idea that, if it is well presented and carried out within a Community approach, could contribute added value to our efforts at governance, unlike what some of you have said. Indeed, the efforts that our governments have intensified, efforts to bring about economic political coordination, have always been part of the Commission’s general approach and that of most members of this Parliament.
This therefore gives us an opportunity. If Heads of State or Government are now willing to become involved in the coordination of economic policies, and even in certain domains that were hitherto considered to be of national competence alone, I think that this should be welcomed insofar as it contributes added value to growth and employment, and insofar as it respects systems of Community governance. That is what is at stake.
I think that, from this point of view, the debate has been very useful. Furthermore, I believe that the message from this Parliament has reached the European Council. President Buzek passed it on the last time he was at the European Council. I think that on essential matters, both the Commission and Parliament will be firm in the defence of the Community approach, convinced that this is the only way for Europe to achieve the objectives we have set for ourselves in the euro area, for stability and also for growth and employment throughout the Union.
Secondly, as regards what I would like to see in the EFSF, it is not a question of liking, it is a question of policy: we in the Commission are actively working with the Member States, specifically those in the euro area, to reinforce the EFSF’s capacity for lending in order to expand the scope of its activities, including greater flexibility. Some of these issues are extremely sensitive from the point of view of the markets, so it does not seem prudent to me to be announcing intentions that have not become definite, but it is a work in progress in terms of the euro area. Furthermore, as you know, the Commission has clearly set out its proposal for reinforcing the EFSF and expanding its activities, specifically in its annual growth survey.
As to whether this policy should or can be changed, I am telling you now that it cannot be changed with regard to the most vulnerable countries. It would be absolutely irresponsible for countries with such a level of public or private debt to water down their efforts at budgetary consolidation and structural reforms at the moment. When a country has such a high level of debt, the markets’ confidence has to recover, because if not, its economic situation becomes untenable. Therefore, if we want to help the countries that are currently most vulnerable, we must not offer them mirages or something unrealistic: on the contrary, we must support any sensible efforts that they might make toward budgetary consolidation and structural reforms. That is the only way to have the markets’ trust. Naturally, this is not just the effort of the country in isolation, which needs a joint effort from the euro area. That is what is being developed with, obviously, different levels of contribution from the various parties involved.
What I can tell you is that the Commission has been doing everything in its power to suggest greater ambition. However, as the honourable Members know, the Commission makes suggestions, but in the end, the decision belongs to the Member States, specifically those of the euro area, particularly as regards matters that are strictly national competences, such as those not provided for in the Treaty, such as the EFSF.
In any case, I would like to say to the entire Parliament that many of the criticisms that I have heard here today – even though most supported the Commission’s general approach – have been addressed, if I have understood correctly, to specific governments or specific Member States. Consequently, it is not up to me to speak on their behalf.
What I have to say is that the Commission has presented a package of proposals for economic governance. We have pushed to the limit our governments’ ambitions. Even in the case of the governance package that my colleague, Mr Rehn, and I presented, the Member States were not willing to accept the initial level of ambition. That is the truth of the matter, for we submitted legislative proposals.
Now what has emerged is a new idea, namely, the competitiveness pact which we are trying – and here I wish to be very transparent and show my respect for Parliament – to fit as well as we can within the Community approach.
I have reported to you, in complete transparency, the Commission’s efforts to make this idea regarding the impact of competitiveness useful and create added value, either in respect of growth and employment – which, as I have already said, remain a priority for the Commission – or even to strengthen the system of governance. Of course, I do not need the Commission to be reminded of its role as guarantor of the Treaty. We have unfailingly demonstrated this, be it in relation to issues of the internal market, competition or non-discrimination. I can guarantee to you once again that the Commission would not hesitate to resort to all the means at its disposal if we were to believe that any principles or rules of the Treaty were being compromised by decisions taken either by the European Council, or by any other institution.
That is why the work we do is long-term in nature and, of course, it is serious work that we carry out with a sense of responsibility. Obviously, this is an extremely delicate time for us, as you know, a time when the first thing that governments look at in the morning is the spread in their public debts."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples