Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-06-13-Speech-3-016-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120613.6.3-016-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I hope that everyone who applauded Mr Daul today will provide evidence when it comes to the ‘two-pack’ that what Mr Daul said is also the opinion of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), for example, and that we really will find the solutions that we need to overcome the crisis. Mr Daul, we will see this afternoon how serious that applause was. Nonetheless, we applaud you for what you said.
I would like to quote somebody who is not a socialist, but rather a fellow Member of your party, Mr Lewandowski, and that is Poland’s finance minister, who said to me in conversation that everyone is talking about how we must invest more in research and development and not so much in infrastructure and the Cohesion Fund, but we also need resources for growth; we also need ways to invest in all the regions that are still in a very poor economic position.
That is why it makes no sense to simply cut this budget; instead, we have to use it more efficiently and sensibly. However, if we talk about being more competitive, if we say that we have to do something to make us competitive globally as well, then we cannot cut the budget – which is a small budget in any case, but which is an element of this strategy, and it is an element that we absolutely cannot do without. That is why we have to go down this road together.
I warmly welcome the fact that you attended the Friends of Cohesion summit in Bucharest, Mr Barroso – even if you came in for some criticism. The statement could have been somewhat more strongly worded, for, on one side, there are those who want to do nothing but cut and cut and cut again and, on the other, just words. However, a good initiative has been established, because we cannot just listen to those who constantly say that we have to cut resources – we also have to listen to those who are using these resources.
Moreover, a distinction is being made between net contributors and net beneficiaries, as if one were the good guys and the other the poor people receiving alms. The net beneficiaries are not being given alms; they are receiving a good share so that they can expand their economies. I am from Austria, a net contributor country, and I know very well that my country is also profiting a great deal from the fact that Hungary, Romania, Poland and many other countries are receiving EU funding. Let us therefore do away with this division into good net contributors and bad net beneficiaries.
Finally, Mr President, with just a few exceptions, we were unanimous yesterday in telling the Council that the way decisions were made on Schengen is not acceptable. I hope we can retain this unanimity when it comes to the budget, that we will send a clear message to the Council, and also to all those who blindly want to make cuts everywhere, that this is not acceptable. If we cannot reach agreement – I appreciate what you said, Mr Wammen – then we will just have to go to the 2013 budget and update it. We can live with that. I hope the Council can live with it too.
Mr Barroso, you have offered us an interinstitutional agreement. My group is prepared to go along with that. There is no point in having an agreement, however, unless it has substance. If it amounts to nothing more than us saying that we now need completion of the internal market and austerity, and all that will bring growth – which remains the majority opinion to date, even among governments – then there is no point in such an agreement. Moreover, there is only a point to the agreement if we actually pass real measures at the time of the upcoming summit. After all, am I supposed to say to the many millions of young unemployed people that, although they do not have a job, we can give them an interinstitutional agreement? They will hardly be enthralled by that.
I do not want to mock what you have said; I take it seriously. I simply want to draw attention to what it is that we really need. We need swift decisions, and swift decisions in the coming days. We have a debt problem, the debts are growing and not reducing because our Heads of Government still have not grasped what this is all about and do not have the courage to tackle what you have proposed and what we have proposed in order to solve the debt problem together.
All of a sudden, there is talk of a banking union. If you recall, ladies and gentlemen, we proposed that two years ago. The Commission was moving in that direction, and the government officials and the finance ministers said ‘No, no, no, that is going much too far’ and ‘European supervision of the banks must be reduced – we need more national regulation’. It has taken the Heads of Government two years to think it over. At present, the Heads of Government need two years to arrive at the right ideas. The same is true of other things that you mentioned, Mr Barroso. That is the situation at the moment.
We recently had a large conference involving young people from all over Europe which was not linked to any political party. There were a great many young people there who had done something, rather than just complaining that nothing was happening. They had established small businesses, created start-ups. However, what they were asking was where there was currently any demand, where they could sell their products, who was now ensuring that there is growth, who was investing in infrastructure.
That is why I am saying that, yes, we can talk very earnestly about an agreement, but now is the time for action. Once again, I can only quote from
. You will see it and recognise it. The ship is in deep water and the question is – a question I can only agree with:
Please can we start the engine now, Ms Merkel? Yes, we have to start the engine now and not in one or two years, when it is too late.
Let me now also say something about the budget, which, after all, is an element of the growth strategy. At the moment, a lot of people are saying, ‘We want the growth, but we do not want the budget – or we want a reduced budget’. What kind of nonsense is that? It is precisely in the many elements of the budget that we find aspects of a growth strategy – much more so than in national budgets."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples