Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-09-12-Speech-3-032-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120912.4.3-032-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, as a critical but fervent pro-European, I am, of course, just as concerned as almost everyone else here. We know that the decision made in Karlsruhe today will in reality only buy us a little more time. We know that all the measures that have been taken so far, whether these are liquidity injections from the European Central Bank (ECB), aid for Greece or the latest decision to buy bonds, are just a roundabout way of financing the banks. It is no coincidence that bank shares rose dramatically last Thursday. This is, of course, bitterly ironic, because the City of London has benefited from these bank redistributions out of the euro area and involving the euro. There is a group in this Parliament which spends its time defending the City of London – you could also call them the most effective lobbyists – and those are the members of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), who are constantly saying the same thing, which is very dangerous for Europe.
Mr Barroso, you have been speaking about the irresponsible actions of the banks which triggered the crisis. However, we are also aware that we politicians have failed, because we have not kept the banks under control. You asked whether it was realistic for us to expect to regain the confidence of the markets, but that is not really the right question. The question is: Why are you not finally tackling the issue of bank regulation, as your mentor Ms Merkel has already done? Every player, every financial institution and every market place must be controlled. Why do we no longer talk about the fact that possibly the most important financial act of the 20th century, the US Glass-Steagall Act of 1932, could be a suitable model for Europe? If we were to implement it, we would finally be rid of the problem of banks that are too big to fail. It is clear that many banks are not only too big to fail, but also much too big to be managed effectively. We do not even need to mention the word LIBOR (London Interbank Offered Rate). I would like to know why you are not bold enough to take the necessary effective action. The Glass-Steagall Act has only 37 pages. Our previous confused attempts to bring the financial world under control amount to thousands of pages. This results in a lack of understanding and reinforces the crisis of confidence which you rightly referred to.
If you were already in the process of tackling the banking system, then you would, of course, also need to look at the shadow banks, which worldwide have a volume of almost EUR 46 billion, amounting to a quarter of the entire financial market. The members of the Commission do not even know how much money is being used where and in what way. We do not know how many naked credit default swaps there are on government bonds. That is one of the main reasons why all the measures now being taken are being taken in this way. We can intervene here and we can introduce regulations. This also applies to the rating agencies, which politicians and legislators have elevated to their current position, and to the lobby groups. How can it be that there are 700 financial lobbyists with a budget of EUR 350 million in Brussels and the members of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs almost have to beg to get hold of the information they need? The situation is totally unbalanced.
You referred to the crisis of confidence and that is, of course, entirely appropriate. However, if you do not succeed in getting the monster that is the financial markets under control, you will not have a majority anywhere in Europe for what is presumably a sensible objective, in other words, a strong Europe in a globalised world. You are well aware that you will not be able to avoid holding referendums, at least in Germany and in my home country of Austria, on a new project. However, if there are to be referendums, then the necessary steps must be taken first.
Much of what has already been said on this subject is, of course, true. However, I would like to repeat that you should be concentrating solely on regulating the financial markets. It is clear from conversations with people all over Europe that this is a very important issue. A new conspiracy theory is now going the rounds which claims that Europe is really governed by Goldman Sachs, because Mr Draghi, Mr Monti and many of the events in Greece have direct links with Goldman Sachs. These are dangerous trends. However, if you manage to get the financial sector under control, then you will no longer have to be concerned about sovereign power. I am convinced that we can win the referendums, but the key word is, of course, not ‘banking union’, but ‘citizens union’ or to put it briefly ‘citizens not banks’."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples