Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-07-05-Speech-2-579-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110705.37.2-579-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Dr Barroso, we are discussing the multiannual financial framework for the period 2014-2020 in the very week when the rating agencies have called into question the second financial bailout plan for Greece, following the resounding failure of the first.
There is something odd about this. I have my doubts as to whether we are really learning the lessons we should be from the situation in which Europe finds itself; the situation through which we are struggling. Just as there is no chance of any bailout succeeding without mentioning European public debt, without Eurobonds, I also cannot see how it might be possible for the euro to exist without a robust budget; a demanding budget.
That is the lesson that I do not think anyone is learning. Therefore, Mr Callanan, my first observation is that the Commission proposal does not go far enough: it is a proposal to freeze the European budget in real terms. That is what we are talking about, in fact: 1% of gross domestic product (GDP) to the European budget, the freezing of the European budget in the medium and long term. This, then, raises a fundamental problem: either we do not do what needs to be done with the European budget, or we will multiply the financial mechanisms and instruments outside the budget to do what is necessary. However, we will then have a real problem of democratic control, of democracy, in this Union.
My second observation relates to financial transactions. I welcome the fact that the Commission has changed its position. For years, social movements and the political left have been arguing that there was a need for a European financial transactions tax, in the face of silence and even cynicism. The European Union, and Dr Barroso in particular, has always said either no or, later, that it needed to be at global level.
I clearly welcome the change of opinion, but we need to understand each other. I should really like to know why he has changed his mind, because this question is important for one simple reason: I need to know if it is a new conviction, if it is strong and if it will convince the governments that do not want it, because there is a need for unanimity on fiscal matters in the European Union.
My third observation relates to spending. There is an important proposal to increase spending on scientific research and innovation. However, the volume of funding is less important than where it goes. I shall give an example that also says something about the social issue in Europe: one in four Europeans has or will have cancer. At the moment, 90% of people who die of cancer in Europe die of metastasis, but the bulk of funding for cancer research does not go on metastasis, it goes on primary cancers. More than 90%! It is, therefore, a problem of quality – I am concluding, Mr President – it is problem of quality that is before us and it is a problem of social commitment, and that is the main limitation of the proposal you have presented to us, in my opinion."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples