Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-03-13-Speech-2-057-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120313.6.2-057-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I will respond specifically to the questions that have been raised. First of all, there was a question on the letter from the 12 governments. I said at the European Council meeting that I could endorse practically every word of that letter. They were all elements that were very important for growth, particularly the development of the internal market and structural reforms. However, I also pointed out to the Member States two aspects which seemed important to me. First of all, there is no reference in the letter to the social dimension or the need to combat poverty. I believe that we need to combine a number of structural reform measures with measures that are proactive in social terms. Secondly, I made clear to the European Council how shocked I was that there is not a single reference to the Europe 2020 strategy. That means that a strategy which was adopted unanimously by the European Council has not even been mentioned by the Heads of State or Government.
That is why, to be honest, I cannot accept the words of some people who say here that they truly share Greece’s suffering, and that they regret all the difficulties that it is going through. Their government has not, however, spent a single euro, or a single pound to help Greece.
That is not the kind of solidarity we need. Look at what they are proposing as a solution for Greece: default. Default is apparently the solution. I would really like someone to explain to me why the default of a European Union Member State could be the solution. What kind of confidence could there be in that country in terms of investment? How could deadlock throughout that country, the paralysis of its public services, the inability to pay public officials and the closure of hospitals and schools be a solution for the country? Come on, we have to be serious here. Suggesting default as a solution for Greece is truly an instance of political and intellectual dishonesty such as I have rarely seen before.
There are also some people who say that this programme for Greece is not going to work, that it is an invention of the Troika. Well, let us be clear on this subject as well. The programme for Greece is the programme that was unanimously adopted by the Member States of the euro area. The so-called Troika, namely, the Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund, has acted within the framework of the mandate it received, in line with the aid that was available. That is the question.
So now, all those who wish to help Greece – which approved the programme, not just through its government, but also through its parliament, with the two main parties – instead of starting to say that it will never work, I really think they would do better to help us to help Greece. Granted, it is extremely difficult; granted, there are enormous costs; granted, we will have to see how we can help Greece to bear certain social costs which, in the short term, are immense. The truth is, though, that there is no other real solution than to promote structural reform so that Greece can regain the competitiveness it really needs.
Another question was on equity and standards, and was raised just now by my friend, Mr Saryusz-Wolski. Here, the response must be absolutely clear. The Commission will do all it can to apply all the treaties in an absolutely equitable way, without any discrimination. The example you mentioned of Hungary and Spain, frankly, does not make sense, because there is a vital difference: Hungary was due to achieve its aim of reducing the deficit in 2011; Spain must do so by 2013. We have proposed certain measures to Hungary, but they are not the only ones. There were five countries to which we made proposals: Poland, Cyprus, Malta, Belgium and Hungary. All but Hungary accepted them. It was not a case of special treatment for Hungary; it was Hungary that did not wish to adopt the proposals made by the Commission, in contrast to Poland, Cyprus, Malta and Belgium, namely, both countries which are in the euro area and countries which are not.
I tell you this quite openly because it would be a mistake now to create artificial divides between the countries in the euro area and those outside it. The Commission has always supported the integrity of the European Union and we are not going to have two different standards depending on the position of each of our countries.
Finally, as well as very interesting and very useful aspects to the debate, I have nonetheless noted several points on which there was consensus, at least among the largest political groupings. Firstly, we need to do more to combat youth unemployment, using the action teams that we have created. We must combat tax evasion. I would like to remind the Members of this Parliament that the Commission has not just made statements, but it has already made some proposals. Our initiative is called the ‘Savings Directive’, and we have also put forward a mandate for negotiation with third countries. The proposal has been before the Council for many months, but is blocked by two Member States. As you know, unanimity is required. Therefore, if you want to criticise someone, do not criticise the Commission; instead, help us to remove the obstacles posed by two of our Member States.
With regard to Greece, I can tell you that it was one of the subjects of my conversation with Prime Minister Papademos and six other members of my Commission. I called upon them to ensure – even before a comprehensive agreement by the European Union with Switzerland, and with other countries – that Greece enters into a bilateral agreement with Switzerland, which complies, of course, with EU law. Not only did I mention this to the Greek prime minister, but I had already mentioned it to the previous President of the Swiss Confederation, on the last occasion.
Another aspect of the consensus I have seen here relates to the need to bring the single internal market to completion. I have already announced that some time in the autumn, the Commission will put forward the Single Market Act, and you can count on us to do that. There is also agreement on the need to match our action with investment. That is why we have tabled this before the European Council. It was favourably received, but now we must actually find the legislative text, the project bonds, to make some investment by anticipating now what we hope to have in due course in the financial framework, and because we are in agreement on this point.
The question is whether we have the resources for this investment. The truth is that in most of our Member States, we do not have any budgetary margin for much public investment. That is why we need – and I think that on this point the major political groupings are in agreement – to work together to obtain certain resources for a European investment, either through performance bonds, or project bonds, or the future financial framework.
I hope that Parliament will work with the Commission to ensure that our results match our ambitions. It will be necessary, too, to use all the growth levers, such as innovation and research, and also our European instruments, but that will demand a lot of work and a lot of determination. I truly believe that in order to achieve growth in Europe, we do not need more announcements of growth. What we need is not more announcements but commitment in implementation and execution and determination. This is how we will be able to fulfil the commitments and promises that we have made, and by ‘we’ I mean all the institutions and also each of our Member States.
I am appealing to Parliament on this, because we now have a strategy and we must apply it, determinedly, to all these areas. That is what I was referring to when I talked of ownership of the strategy at all levels. However, in the reply I sent to the 12 Heads of State or Government, I also enclosed an annex outlining everything that is already being done by the European institutions; that is to say, not only by the European Council, but also by the Commission and the Council. It is clear from this document that some of the issues are being blocked by the very same governments that signed the letter.
One example is the European patent. We have been discussing the possibility of having a European patent for 30 years. Nonetheless, we now have governments which are calling for more to be done for growth, but are still blocking the European patent.
That is why we need to be in agreement. Let us look at what people talk about when they speak of Europe. When it is said that Europe has some problems at the moment, which is true, we must look at which parties are doing their best to move European projects forward and which are sometimes blocking decisions at European level. I believe that this is a vital precondition for a debate that is not only politically but also intellectually honest.
The issue of Greece is one that demands such honesty. Greece is not in this situation because of the euro, because in truth, there are other countries outside the euro area which have also had need of assistance programmes. There are other countries even outside the European Union – the first that comes to mind is Iceland – which have had problems closely approaching a general crisis for the Member States.
The problem that we are experiencing today is chiefly due to two things: firstly, the unsustainable nature of many of our countries’ public debts and, secondly, and not necessarily in that order, irresponsible financial conduct in many spheres, particularly outside Europe.
We now have a response, therefore, which is undoubtedly more difficult in terms of structure because of the euro, since we are a monetary union which has not yet fully established all the instruments of economic union and we are in the midst of giving an urgent response to the challenge. It is, however, intellectually and politically mistaken to say that the current crisis is a result of the euro. Quite the reverse: the euro may be the solution to the current crisis."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples