Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-09-14-Speech-3-015-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110914.3.3-015-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in this Parliament and in the debate with the Council and the Commission on the euro crisis, I feel as if I am trapped in a time loop. The question which we need to ask ourselves when we say that the European Union is currently on the brink of disaster is why all the strong calls from Parliament for a commitment to more Europe and not to less have so far not produced any results. I am largely in agreement with your analyses, Mr Verhofstadt. However, I would like to contradict you on one point. I do not believe that the markets are calling for regulation. Instead, I believe that the markets have so far been exploiting every weak point in our policy in order to continue speculating against the euro and against individual states. Strong calls from our bank do not do any good in this respect when the European Commission and the Council ultimately fail to take a consistent approach to regulating the financial markets.
Our ‘six-pack’ of legislation is all very well, but we already know that ultimately we will say yet again that it is a move in the right direction, but that it does not go far enough.
At the end of this summer the Polish Presidency rightly said that Mr Trichet, the president of the European Central Bank, had saved the European Union – not the euro, but the European Union. What that means, and I believe that it is an accurate description, has not yet been explained. However, I cannot currently tell you how we get to the point after 18 months or two years of debate of sending a signal to the financial markets that none of the Member States of the European Union will be sacrificed and that the unity we are always talking about is real. I can only come up with empty phrases, because I no longer believe in our ability to take action.
Mr Barroso, I would now like to address my remarks to you. Your speech and your analysis at the end of the turbulent events of recent months has not indicated to me that you are the right person, together with the Commission, to show us the way out of intergovernmentalism and out of the club of rich countries which is currently governing the eurozone and towards a greater sense of community. I am sorry, but I really do have to say this.
I believe that we must be just as critical of ourselves as stakeholders in the European Union as we are of the Member States. The citizens of the European Union want the European Union. However, if we are no longer in a position to explain what we have agreed, how we will implement the measures we have agreed on, what has changed in Greece and what has been achieved in Germany, if we cannot explain that, Mr Barroso, then the prospects for what is actually needed seem very poor.
In my opinion, and this has been mentioned here in the context of the expectations of China, the United States and other countries, we still represent one of the best and most successful areas in the world. We have so far not been able to find a responsible way out of the crisis. Mr Schulz has my full support for the statement that this is making everything worse, that injustice is growing and that we are increasing the burden on ordinary people during this crisis, while the rich continue to get richer. We have a lot of issues to deal with. There are enough formulas available for economic governance. We now need to implement it and explain it in a credible way, so that the citizens of Europe are prepared to follow us. That is the most important task facing us in the European Union."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples