Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-09-12-Speech-3-012-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120912.4.3-012-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, you have given a good speech, Mr Barroso, parts of which could even be described as very good. In some areas I would like to see things being taken further and I will also be explaining where we in the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament would go further. You have declared your support for the European social model and rightly so. I would have liked to have seen more support for the social model from those on the right, because it is very much at risk.
We politicians are facing a challenge. There is an alternative which, most importantly, must lead to investment. Mr Barroso, in the US public investment is increasing. In China public investment is increasing. In Japan public investment is increasing. What is happening in Europe? How can we go on talking about competitiveness, if we are no longer investing? You are on our side when it comes to the question of tax increases and tax evasion. If we only received a quarter of the tax revenue which we lose every year in Europe through tax evasion, by means of transfers to Switzerland and other tax havens, we could increase public investment in Europe by 40%. That is our problem.
Therefore, we agree with you. To ensure that the financial markets do not react as dramatically as they have done, we need stronger regulation which is targeted in particular at high-frequency trading. We definitely need measures to combat tax avoidance and tax evasion. I am calling once again on Austria and Luxembourg finally to give the Commission a mandate for negotiations with Switzerland. We also need the financial transaction tax. A motion has still not been submitted to the Commission. I agree with you about the banking union and the supervision of the banks. We must not prop them up again using taxpayers’ money. We need a budget that stimulates growth. We are on your side. I want to be very clear about one thing. The Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament will not vote in favour of a European budget that makes no contribution to growth. We are strongly opposed to attempts to cut the budget even further for populist reasons. It is already small enough and many regions need this budget.
However, what we are particularly concerned about is the disregard for the social question. This does not just affect the poor countries. If we look at youth unemployment and how fast it is growing, it is clearly not only a problem for the countries on the periphery. Do the ladies and gentlemen in this House know that one in every five workers in Germany, good old wealthy Germany, is a low-paid worker? Are the ladies and gentlemen on the right who do not belong to the German Christian Democratic Union (CDU) aware that Ms von der Leyen, their minister, wanted to take extensive measures to combat old-age poverty, but was prevented from doing so by her own party and has now had to go to the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) and ask for help? That is the reality: poverty, old-age poverty and youth unemployment are all things which are extremely serious problems in the peripheral countries in the south, but which are gradually also reaching the wealthy countries like Germany. Germany is also sliding into recession. One third of Germans are worried about social exclusion. That is today’s Europe. If we want to defend Europe, it should not be a Europe like this.
It is a scandal that the paper produced by Mr Van Rompuy contains nothing about the social issues. You will probably agree with this, Mr Barroso, but I am calling on you to take action. The questions which concern most people in Europe today, in other words, unemployment, poverty and social exclusion, are not even mentioned in Mr Van Rompuy’s paper. Therefore, I am calling for a chapter in the paper on social issues. On behalf of my group, I am also calling for a social pact, because the ladies and gentlemen on the right of this House are very keen on having a fiscal compact. I agree. With great difficulty and only as a result of pressure from the new French Government, we have a growth pact, a weak one, but a growth pact all the same. However, a social pact is apparently not important to you at all. We need a social pact to combat the decline in solidarity in Europe, youth unemployment and old-age poverty and to promote the integration of our foreign and immigrant fellow citizens. There are many social questions in Europe and, therefore, my group would like to have a social pact at last, not only a weak growth pact and not only a stringent fiscal pact.
Mr Barroso, the President of Parliament has also touched on the issue of democracy which has been put at risk by the mismanagement of the many financial markets. Sovereignty is in jeopardy, but national sovereignty is not threatened by Europe. However, democracy is definitely also at risk, because we are seeing antidemocratic tendencies developing. As the Council takes on more and more responsibility, in particular for budget issues, I would like to know who the Council is accountable to for its actions. At a national level it is the individual Heads of State or Government. Mr Van Rompuy is notable for his absence from this House. We rarely see him and generally only after the event, when he explains what has happened or more often what has not happened. This is an unacceptable trend. We want the Council to be fully accountable, particularly to this House, because parliamentary democracy at a European level is part of democracy as a whole. It is an essential component of democracy. The Council should not take upon itself responsibilities and powers which it is not entitled to. That is a violation of democracy.
You have assured us of your commitment to Europe’s role in the world, which must be a strong role. That is also the right thing to do. Yesterday, Mr Goebbels reported on a meeting in Asia. The Asian representative began his speech with the words: ‘we from the emerging countries and you Europeans from the submerging countries’. That is the image that Europe, at least in part, is presenting today. We all agree that we want Europe to continue to belong to the emerging countries and regions. However, if we do not change our economic policy, this will not happen. If we see the economic crisis only as a crisis in state spending – you presented it in more differentiated terms, but many others on the right see it in this way – and, therefore, if we believe that it is simply about cutting services, then we will not emerge from the crisis. In fact, we will end up in an even deeper recession. The Portuguese Prime Minister made this quite clear. If you start with an extreme austerity policy, you end up having to reach even deeper into people’s pockets. We do not want that. We do not want the poorest people in Europe to become even poorer. That is not a policy that we in the S&D Group can support.
Some journalists in the German and Austrian media rightly regard the Council as a bastion of nationalism. I understand your concept of a federation of nation states. However, Mr Barroso, it must be clear that we are fighting together to ensure that the individual countries hand over to Europe the powers needed to allow us to defend our sovereignty jointly in today’s and tomorrow’s world.
Finally, I would like to say that we also need a new treaty. However, if we tell the people who are currently unemployed that we have no jobs for them and, at the same time, begin discussing a new EU treaty, at best, they will fail to understand us and, at worst, they will resort to violence. Therefore, we need to proceed with caution. First of all, we must have a European debate. We discussed this yesterday with some of the foreign ministers, who are working on a paper. We need a European debate on the goals of the future Europe. We have a great deal in common in this area. Then after the next elections we can organise a convention. When we know where we want to go, this convention can also, and I would like to make this quite clear, decide on a new constitution and not on an amendment to the treaty. We finally need a European constitution, but only after we have solved our current problems. That is vital.
In conclusion, Mr Barroso, I would like to offer you the opportunity to work closely together with us. If we fight side-by-side to achieve a Europe of employment, of social cohesion and of democracy, then we will be on the right track. We do not have a lot of time until the next elections. We need to make changes in Europe. We must join together to combat the decline in solidarity and to fight against nationalism, which represents a threat to us. We can all be proud of our national flags, but if the European flag does not fly next to the British flag, then it is wrong to fly the British flag. If the European flag is there, then the British one can be as well, because it is the concept of a shared Europe that links us together.
Mr Barroso, I have said to you on many occasions that the troika is unfortunately contributing to this recessionary policy. The troika should instead be focusing on fundamental reforms of decrepit structures, which is what we need. However, if the troika believes that we can get out of this mess simply by making cuts, I would like to know where all its successes have been. Every forecast based on measures recommended by the troika has had to be corrected.
In Spain – and the foreign minister and the minister for Europe are sitting here, our former colleagues, even if they are chatting to one another – unemployment has risen from 11% to 24%, a world record for comparable countries, and sovereign debt has increased from 40% to 81%. Is that supposed to be a success? The troika is unsuccessful, because it has the wrong solutions, because it is not investing in growth and because it is not familiar with the concept of ‘demand’ as a stimulus for growth.
Mr Daul, you mentioned Mr Dombrovskis. Has Mr Dombrovskis told you how many well-trained people have left Latvia, the other Baltic states and the countries in the south because they cannot find jobs? This is what is called success, when unemployment levels are high and those who are affected are exported. Where are the people of Europe supposed to emigrate to if we all end up in a recession? Mozambique, Angola, Brazil and other countries will not be big enough.
Let us be honest. The policy has failed. The only institution that has stepped into the breach at the moment is the European Central Bank (ECB). Not that I am happy with all its measures. However, if we did not have the ECB, we would be in a much deeper mess. If we did not have a man like Mr Draghi at its head, but instead had a man like Mr Weidmann, the catastrophe in Europe would be much more serious."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples