Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-08-Speech-3-050"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031008.7.3-050"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, first of all, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I believe that the first part of your speech fulfils the commitment given by the Italian Presidency to inform Parliament of what has happened during each part-session.
We must be more rigorous in periods of strong growth: for example, the obligation to have a balanced budget on the basis of 3% growth or more, the obligation to use anything that exceeds the 3% growth in order to decrease debt and to leave the States in the euro zone with more flexibility for investment spending during a recession phase. What does not make any sense is to maintain a single level which does not correspond to the Union’s economic reality. Specifically, at the moment Germany and France, with a debt of around 60% of their GDP, have greater room for manoeuvre than Italy or Belgium which exceed it, which exceed 100% by a long way. In other words, we must be flexible here as well.
And if we were capable of attaching new conditions – something which should be debated at the European Council – to the Stability and Growth Pact, then the second part we have all referred to would come: this formula of returning to a great network of investments in trans-European networks also supplemented by investments in technology and research.
This was said ten years ago at the European Council in Essen. With enlargement our EUR 400 billion are going to become the EUR 600 billion identified by the Van Miert group with a view to 2020. Well, nothing is being done. We are moving very slowly. An analysis is made and what can be done? The President of the Commission has proposed – if I have understood correctly – that funding should increase from 10% to 30% of the projects. This is a step. What can the other be? It may be a great European loan. Why not?
Our capacity for debt is intact, we have a euro zone in which 90% of transactions are carried out between the member countries. Why do we not dare to implement a relaunching policy, which no country can do individually, so that there may be results for the whole continent?
Our budget approximately represents a miserly 1% of Community GDP. The United States deficit for this financial year is equivalent to 6 European Union budgets. I do not propose that we go as far as the United States with the deficit spending, but we could at least make an effort. We have the means but we do not have the will.
I would like to say that those of us, myself in particular, who asked that Parliament be adequately represented, appear to have been listened to and I would like to thank the Italian Presidency for this.
With regard to the first session of the Intergovernmental Conference, I must say to you, Mr President-in-Office of the Council – and you will understand this given your professional experience – that you have touched our trigeminus, which is the most sensitive nerve in the body, as you are well aware. Why? Because the first thing the Intergovernmental Conference has done has been to get rid of the legislative Council, with some resistance on the part of Germany and Portugal, and that is very serious. It is very serious because we are working on the basis of shared legislative powers and the first thing the Council does is to dismantle something which is essential in a democracy: legislating in the open, in public. It appears to be an appendix to the Council and I naturally support our two representatives in the Intergovernmental Conference who vigorously opposed that outrage. Furthermore, I would say that this is not only a problem you face with us: it is also a problem you face as regards the national parliaments, because the greatest insult is to the parliaments of the Member States.
I would repeat my request that the Committee on Constitutional Affairs invite all the members of the Convention from the national parliaments and present them with this problem: how can the legislative Council be dismantled in the first session of the Intergovernmental Conference.
And having said that, please allow me to focus on my observations relating to the economic aspect. I will leave the task of dealing with the issue of borders to my colleague, Mrs Ana Terrón.
My comments are based on one particular fact: stability is a public asset; nobody, neither people, families nor States can live beyond their means, and the policy of stability based on combating inflation is a policy in defence of the majority of society. Only property owners, and the bigger the better, can survive and even profit from inflation.
Stability protects the most humble and the Stability Pact is an urgent objective, but there can be no stability without growth. At the moment the greatest danger to the European economy is not so much inflation but deflation and therefore, having lived through three years of mild recession, all the Member States must address a situation in which there are fewer resources, and they are therefore in a vicious cycle in which they have to increasingly get into debt or reduce investment costs and sometimes both things at the same time.
It appears that Europe has chosen the latter route, which is the worst one. Since the end of the last decade public investments have fallen in the European Union by around 1% (in the United States this figure stands at 3%). According to the Commission’s data, investment of 1% means supplementary growth of 0.6%.
We must recognise that the European States have not taken advantage of the good years. They have not carried out a policy of the ant: they have carried out a policy of the cicada and have not reduced their debt, but it is equally true that the Member States will not recover the virtuous cycle of growth if they restrict themselves to survival or maintenance investments, and if they continue to cut off the citizens’ spending power. What we must do is carry out an intelligent reform of the pact in order not to be guilty of the accusation of stupidity which has been made. Yes, Mr President, I will use the same expression; you will know that it is the only one that does not require translation into any European language: stupidity."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples