Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-10-27-Speech-4-058-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20111027.6.4-058-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what are the realities? The realities are three decisions that are not final decisions, but that still await implementation. This summit is evidence of progress, however we still await the solutions.
We have an institutional crisis on our hands. You have made three remarks on the institutions, Mr Van Rompuy. The first is this: cooperation is needed between the Commission and the Head of the Euro Group – in other words you, yourself – in order to intervene in the budgetary sovereignty of the national parliaments in cases of excessive deficits, as with Italy, for example. Your second remark regarding the institutions was that the 17 need to go further than the rest, but that you would do your best to prevent a two-tier system. Your third remark regarding the institutions related to Treaty change. All three ideas, two of which we have now heard from you in concrete terms, as well as the proposal to change the Treaty, contain or provide for enormous executive rights that put an end to national sovereignty rights. There is one institution, however, that receives no mention in your proposals: the European Parliament, the platform for European Democracy. I would say to you, not just on behalf of my own group, but, I believe, on behalf of most Members of this House, that whatever your executive intentions in Europe in relation to the Treaty, you need the European Parliament! Because this is an interim summit, you should take the President of the European Parliament seriously by including him in your deliberations. There can be no Treaty change without this Parliament.
Ladies and gentlemen, I am not looking for a fight with the institutions. We need the institutions to complement one another. The institutions in Europe need to work together. Parliament with the Council, the Council with the Commission and the Commission with Parliament. If this is the case, however, then I would ask you why is it that the term ‘European Parliament’ does not appear once in the conclusions of the European Council? We are ready to work with you. I hope you are ready to work with us. If this is not the case, you will have to learn that the European Parliament will make extensive use of its rights on the basis of the Treaty of Lisbon.
It was decided to recapitalise banks by June 2012, so as to stabilise them when the haircut is imposed. There is to be a 50% haircut, however the banks still have to agree. So, we still do not have a solution. With regard to the leveraging of the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) – two options are under discussion, the modalities of which are to be drawn up by the Euro Group by November, according to paragraph 19 of the conclusions. These are the three key decisions produced at the end of this night. These are three significant areas of progress.
The President-in-Office of the Council now tells us that a process that has taken over a year has finally reached a conclusion. Yes, that is true. If you, Mr Van Rompuy, and the 17 Heads of Government of the euro monetary union had not taken the measures you did a year ago, then we would not be where we are today. That is the problem with Europe.
The social imbalance we have in Europe lives on. I read here in paragraph 5 of the conclusions: It is of fundamental importance that the budgetary adjustments should be implemented as planned without compromise. Fine I would have liked to see a statement included indicating that tax evasion in Europe would be pursued without compromise and, likewise, that financial transaction taxes would be introduced.
We will not succeed in building Europe on the foundations of social inequality. Because this summit is an interim step, I would urge the following: the same Heads of State or Government who, under the pressure of the actual circumstances, have now once again approved many billions – hundreds of billions in fact – in an effort to stabilise the banks, nearly lose their reason when we in the Committee on Budgets demand a small increase in the Social Fund or Globalisation Adjustment Fund. These are signals that make people in Europe extremely insecure.
Mr Barroso, you have talked about cooperation with Parliament. You referred to the Community method. I was able to observe the President-in-Office of the Council while you spoke: your remarks elicited a slight smile from him. I believe that this also reflects the attitude within the Council. Article 3 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states: ‘The Union shall establish an economic and monetary union whose currency is the euro.’ Two countries have an opt-out: Denmark and the United Kingdom. All other Member States committed themselves to the introduction of the euro. What is the point of establishing a club of 17 countries, while the rest, all of whom are subject to the rules of the 17, have no say when it comes to decision-making? This makes no sense. That is why I understand the position of the Christian Democratic Union in Germany when their paper says: merge the positions held by Mr Barroso and Mr Van Rompuy and the problem will be solved."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples