Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-06-22-Speech-3-184-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110622.16.3-184-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I should like to begin my comments with a question to Commissioner Rehn and to Mr Kármán of the Council. Both have spoken of an outstanding matter in the argument between the parliamentary majority and the Council. This week I noted that the Council had opposed text in the report by Mrs Ferreira, the rapporteur for the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, concerning the symmetrical approach. Are you able to tell me that this problem has been resolved, because the Council voted in favour of the rapporteur? In actual fact, you would then still have a problem between the majority here and the Council – or did you forget to mention that? If so, I should like to know that too, because then I would think that you consider it unimportant. I should like the two of you to explain this to me at the end of this debate.
Listening to the two conservative groups in this House, and also to the liberals, I get the impression that if we adopt what they have tabled here then the world will be put to rights. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The world would subsequently be worse, not better – because they have turned an opportunity to create a more common economic policy in Europe into an austerity package. That is a bad thing, because it represents a policy that dates from the last century, because it represents an outdated approach which merely takes sanctions regimes from political techniques and not incentives, or smart taxation, or balanced approaches such as have been represented by us. Various sides of the House have made sufficient pragmatic proposals to allow a balanced package to be tabled.
If Mrs Wortmann-Kool wants to claim that it would be blocked by the greens and the social democrats, that is of course simply nonsense. Exactly the opposite is true. To the Members of this House from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) – who run after either the Commission or the Council – I would state that we are not here to let things through on the nod, but rather to think for ourselves. That is what the voters expect of us. I must therefore point out to you that at present you cannot tell whether a Member State is buying defence hardware, fighter aircraft or investing in its education system of tomorrow. You are not in a position to make a qualitative assessment of its budgetary policy. We do, in fact, want to equip you to do so. We wanted a smarter pact which provides greater opportunity for the Commission to have an influence. I cannot understand why Commissioner Rehn is not agreeing to this – more opportunities for influence and a modern economic policy which makes reference to the EU2020 objectives in the interests of our citizens. You have derailed it, and that is a pity. Consequently, this package is by no means balanced.
We will continue to fight for a better economic package. We owe this to our electorate. In truth, the answer has to be ‘more Europe’, not ‘less Europe’. It has to be the right Europe, however – not the wrong package."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples