Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-09-12-Speech-3-077-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120912.4.3-077-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I wanted first of all to listen to all the Members of this Parliament before having the possibility to respond – and I will also be more than happy to hold more specific discussions afterwards with the Group leaders – but I think it was important to hear the contributions from all the Members of Parliament who wanted to take the floor at this stage.
If you read my speech last year, at that time some of the ideas were not given much consideration, but one year later we have seen that the governments – and I believe most political forces – have finally agreed. I proposed the redirection of central funds. I proposed the refinancing of the EIB, I proposed the creation of project funds – there was no consensus for all these ideas at that time, now they are agreed on.
It was also the Commission that proposed some time ago the creation of a strong backstop. At that time we proposed EUR 440 billion. It was rejected by some. It was not considered realistic; now we have it and today – it was about time – we have had the decision of the Constitutional Court of Germany. This shows that what is not agreed to today will become a consensus tomorrow, and our duty here as European institutions is precisely to build on this consensus, to show ambition but at the same time to do so with realism. This is the way to achieve those steps.
I was asked some specific questions, particularly on the banking union, which I think are very important. One was about doing this or not with the Central Bank. Fourteen out of the 17 national supervisors in the euro area today are already the central banks, and the UK is now in fact moving to place these tasks with the Bank of England, so there is not one single model in the European Union and the euro area. What matters is the quality and credibility of the supervision.
But let us be frank. Do we want to delay or do we want a solution? We have agreed, and it was a Commission proposal, to do this around the European Central Bank because this is a well-established European institution, a federal institution in the euro area. Of course we will do this ensuring a separation between the monetary functions and the future supervisory function. Our model offers all the guarantees that one could ask for – the independence of monetary policy – but what we need is a credible supervisor that can break free from the national capture of national supervisors and do so quickly. That is why the ECB is by far the best placed for this. Once again, if we now start to change this, there will be delay. Delaying the solutions is probably in the interests of some people, but it is certainly not in the interest of the European Commission. We want to have a single supervisor for the euro area as soon as possible.
This is why we have put forward a proposal that, in fact, also addresses other matters like the relationship between euro and non-euro area members. The single supervisory mechanism will strengthen the single market. The proposal is designed so as not to create any walls in the single market. The ECB will apply the single rule book, the substantive rules on bank capital requirements and so on which are agreed by all 27 Member States. More effective and consistent application is good for the stability and safety of all.
The non-euro area Member States should be able to take part. The proposal is as open as possible. Those outside the euro area can take part through a close cooperation arrangement. We have gone as far as possible within, of course, the current Treaty legal limits and there are lots of other safeguards. The decisions on supervision of cross-border banks will continue to be made in colleges of supervisors in which host Member States will still have their full say even where the ECB is the home supervisor, and the European Banking Authority will keep all its powers to solve disputes and uphold single market rules including vis-à-vis the ECB.
This is all to show you that no-one is more committed than the Commission to the idea of a Union, to the integrity of the European Union, and yes, to the principle of non-discrimination between Member States, Article 4. When Prime Minister I was one of those fighting for the principle of equality between all our Member States to be recognised. Of course there are different economic dimensions, different demographic dimensions, but as regards the law all the Member States have exactly the same dignity and we should strive for a unity based on these principles.
Some of the points made concerned growth and social matters. First of all, growth. We have to be very honest about this. The biggest problem we have with growth in Europe is the lack of competitiveness that has been accumulated in some of our Member States and we need to bring in reforms for that competitiveness. There are difficult, more urgent, problems, such as the lack of financing for the economy. Some of our countries in fact are making impressive – impressive – efforts of adjustment.
What Greece has achieved is sometimes not sufficiently recognised – or Ireland or Portugal. An impressive adjustment, but what is their problem? They also have a problem in financing the economy precisely because the sovereign debt problems contaminated the banks’ problems. So we should not forget what lay at the origin of this crisis and the origin of this crisis, I have to say to the Eurosceptics: No, it was not the euro. Britain has put in more taxpayers’ money to save the banks than any country in Europe. Iceland is not a member of the euro or the European Union, so it was not the euro which created the problem; it was the irresponsible behaviour of the financial sectors in many areas of the world, including the United States.
Let me first underline that I saw, of course, different positions in this debate – some criticisms, some comments – but I think I can see, at least from the most relevant pro-European forces, strong support for the agenda I have put forward: an agenda which combines ambition with realism.
This was the crux of the problem, and let me tell you that sadly we can see that some people in the financial sector have learnt nothing. After what happened we continued to receive reports of rigging with Libor, manipulating the interest rates. We have seen banks in the United States that are financing Iran contrary to all the legislation of the United States. We have seen banks from Britain financing drug smuggling in Mexico. We continue to see some intolerable practices in the financial sector. This was part of the problem and that is why we need to regulate and to have credible supervision in the financial sector as well.
But this was not the whole cause of the problem. There was also unsustainable debt created by our governments; this is the reality. I am sorry, some people prefer to hear just some part of the reality, but we have to look at the reality in full. That is why we need to see how we came here. We came to this situation because the financial markets did not behave properly and that was the responsibility not of the European Union but of the national supervisors. The European Union at that time had no responsibility at all in terms of national supervision. We are now creating, we are now establishing, the first elements of this European supervision.
The problems of the debt were also created because some Member States did not respect the Stability and Growth Pact which they themselves had signed. When there is no respect for the rules, naturally there are problems of credibility. So I think it is fair to say that Europe’s current problems were not created by the European Union for the Member States, they were much more created by the Member States for the European Union and this is the reality of what we have today.
But now of course we have to see how to get out of this situation, and to get out of this situation requires proper financial supervision and regulation. Addressing the problems of deficit is also required, and so Member States which are under this pressure should continue with consultation measures and also with stricter reforms because there is an underlying problem of lack of comparison in some of our Member States.
It is not easy; there will not be a magic solution; it will require time, determination, persistence, coherence. I know that populists manipulate feelings and anger; they can offer a very simple solution. The solution is ‘No’. Saying ‘No’ is easy; saying ‘No’ to Europe is easy. What is difficult, and that requires leadership, is to say ‘Yes’ but while saying ‘How can we move forward?’ And that is why I am asking you to bring about the conditions for a true European debate with a true European democracy. And I am giving the signal for the next European elections because I believe in democracy.
I was elected to my Parliament in Portugal when I was just twenty-nine years old. Mr Farage, do not look at me like that because in fact I really have a great admiration for the wisdom of the British people. Every time you have tried to be elected in Britain you were rejected; that is why you came here. It shows that the British people know that it is much better to keep you away from your own system.
Every time I ran for election in my country I was elected. I was leader of the opposition, I was Prime Minister and to be President of the Commission I received the support of this European Parliament. But I think we have to go forward. I think we need to go for the next elections with all the relevant political parties – not you, frankly – but with all the relevant political parties to present a candidate for the Commission President and to have a truly political debate.
Today we adopted formally a new regulation for European political parties and I am calling not only on citizens, not only on you, but also on the best forces in Europe to engage in this debate on what we can do. Then I want to appeal to my pro-European, including federalist, friends. Frankly, sometimes I believe we waste too much time and energy criticising secondary issues. I think we have to unite the pro-European forces with regard to the future of Europe. A future that, yes, is to keep the social market economy. The social market economy is in the Treaty of Lisbon, it is not an invention. But at the same time to prepare the European consensus to reform those economies that will become more competitive. That is why European democracy is important.
Ambition is very important but so is the way we deliver on that ambition. Ambitions without results are simply good intentions, and sometimes I have the impression that in Europe we are full of good intentions but with not enough results. This is why we need to have this vision, the vision of a medium-term, longer-term, European Union that is a federal path – and I hope that we will not engage now in semantic discussions about how exactly to qualify it. It is a federal path and it is ambitious, but at the same time we need to respond to issues which are extremely serious and urgent now, even before we get the – in some cases necessary – revision of the current treaties.
There are some people who say democracy cannot be transnational and can only be national because it is based on national parliaments. I am sorry, but those who say that have not understood that we are already in the 21
century. In the 21
century we have transnational phenomena like the financial markets, and if we do not have transnational mechanisms to deal with them, the peoples, the citizens, will not have the leverage to regulate them and to have their say. That is why we also need at European level a European democracy, and a European democracy that is not built against our national democracies but to complement them, to coordinate, and that basis for European democracy is precisely this Parliament.
That is what I am telling you. I am telling you that the Commission is ready to engage in this Parliament and that we are going to put proposals forward before the next European elections so that we can have a real European debate, one where the political forces that are for Europe can say why they are for Europe and those who are against should also say why they are against Europe.
What annoys me today, to be very honest with you, and which we have to recognise, is that in many of our countries those who are taking the lead in the European debate are the anti-Europeans, the Eurosceptics, the populists, the extreme nationalists. That is why we have to provoke the pro-European forces, if necessary by making a positive, constructive clean break with them, to ask them to come and say what the consequences of not having this Europe will be. Because many of the young people around Europe do not remember when a great part of Europe was under totalitarian Communism or when there was no democracy in the south of Europe. They do not remember the times of non-freedom of movement – so we need to make the case for Europe, and to do that we need the pro-European forces from the Left, the Right and the Centre to come and fight for that ideal: to explain it, to take the initiative and not be always on the defensive.
I think this is what we can do for the next European elections and that is why the European Commission will come with proposals which will enable us to leave our comfort zone and sometimes see some of the governments of Europe giving up to those extremist forces because they believe that in that way they will keep some of the votes.
That is a very important point I want to make to you because some of us, instead of trying to attack each other, would be making a much better use of our time if we could try to convince not only the parties here in Strasbourg, but also the parties back home in the capitals, to say the same thing they say here in Strasbourg. The reality is that very often we hear the parties saying one thing here and we know very well that when the same parties are in the governments back home, they say a very different, if not a completely contradictory, thing. This is why we need to build a true public space in Europe with a true European democracy, with true European parties and true European institutions, not working against our Member States but working for a Union that goes beyond the Member States and that gives each Member State and our citizens the capacity to defend our interests and our values in the global world.
So this is our way and this is the way the Commission will pursue with determination. This is the only realistic way to achieve progress in Europe, and those people who pretend that the status quo is enough or those people who pretend that everything will change tomorrow are not in fact serious about what has to be done for Europe.
I cannot resist recalling something that a predecessor of mine, Jacques Delors, once said in French – it was good advice :
‘Beware of the over-excited!’
‘Beware of the over-excited’. We need to have ambition but at the same time every step must be taken with our feet firmly on the ground – and not forgetting one thing: that we are accountable to the European citizens of Europe and we have to have them with us.
That is why one of the most important messages that I believe I brought you today was: How can we complete European democracy? What can we do? Not against our countries, because our countries are still the most important political reference for most of our citizens, but what can we do with our countries to show that they will only count in the world if they accept a much stronger Union; that on their own they will not have the leverage or the capacity to talk on an equal footing with the Americans or the Chinese or other powers; but that yes, together in Europe, we can do this and we can make a difference. That, precisely, is the message I brought you today.
A message where we work with our countries, not for the sake of nationalism, but in fact to win the battle against the nationalists or the extreme populists, to have a democratic federation of countries, a federation of citizens naturally, a union for the citizens of Europe. This is the message I brought you today and this is the only way to go forward if we want to achieve results."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"st"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples