Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-10-21-Speech-2-065"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081021.7.2-065"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, I would be the last person not to recognise that energy and will are necessary in politics, and it is true that the French Presidency has shown a level of energy and will that has done Europe good.
On that basis… yes indeed, I am quite right. You can hide on this issue, Mr Social Democrat, you can hide, but it was unworthy of your policy.
I should like to continue with this point, I should like to continue with a very important matter, that of growth
. Be quiet, I am the one speaking. I mean that, when you say ‘growth’, it is important now to talk about the type of growth and how to obtain it. As the State has now acquired shares in the banks – part of nationalisation, and so on – the debate to be had now concerns how we are going to invest. How and why are we going to invest?
It is a content debate. If we invest in environmental damage, well, we will do what we did before. That is why, as you rightly say, we must discuss a European revival plan, but a European environmental revival plan, that which the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance call a Green Deal, and not just any old thing.
To conclude, I should like to say two things. On tax havens – you used to be finance minister – the obligation to make declarations must be reversed. By that I mean that, when any person, company or bank is going to invest money in a tax haven, that tax haven has to declare to the country of origin the money that has been invested. Reversing what has not…Transparency is a start when it comes to tackling companies that use tax havens. This is an important decision that would move us forward.
Lastly, I should still like to speak about the climate package. Mr Sarkozy, you have organised – Mr Watson is right – an institutional putsch. You have done so by declaring that a decision like this would be taken by the European Council, which must take it unanimously. You have opened a can of worms with the German, Italian and Polish vetos, instead of leaving things as they were, that is, with the vote of parliamentary committees, with the Commission’s adopting of a position, and with the Council of environment ministers. We had the possibility to decide on a climate package by codecision, by qualified majority voting. By rejecting that in December, you eliminated codecision and qualified majority voting. You will pay a very high price for that, because you are now at the mercy of the veto of the countries I have just mentioned.
I therefore support your will regarding Europe, your energy regarding Europe, regarding the fact that we need to move forward, and that Europe must be independent, but at the same time, our views still differ considerably, greatly, when it comes to the ‘how’ issue, to European democracy and to the environmental content of the need for a revival.
Only, sometimes, I feel as though I am dreaming. I feel as though I am dreaming when crises are spoken about, because all crises – the financial crisis, the environmental crisis, world hunger – are interdependent, and we cannot resolve one crisis without resolving the others. On that basis, it is wrong to say that the crisis began in July, September or August! It began years ago – and a bit of self-criticism from a former finance minister of France, a bit of self-criticism from this Commission which, even a year ago, rejected all European regulation of financial flows, would, all the same, make them more credible in the future…
It is like being in a dream! It is as though the current crisis were a natural disaster that was impossible to foresee. No, that is not true – and, on that basis, a debate is possible.
The logic of crises is the following, simple logic: more and more, as quickly as possible. This is what created the financial crisis, this is what is creating the environmental crisis and this is what is causing world hunger to increase. On that basis, let us stop talking about uncontrolled growth… that is to say, it is the content of the change that is important. What I have found interesting is that everyone has spoken about a radical reform of capitalism and of the market economy, but that I have not heard today what the grounds are for this radical reform. It is an environmental market economy and a social market economy that we need, that is to say, we need to call into question the very foundations of our production method, of our lifestyle. If we do not ask these difficult – very difficult – questions, we will once again be headed for disaster.
That is why, when you say, for example, Mr Sarkozy, that help is needed to revive the car industry, what I do not understand is that, at the same time, there is a desire, by the Germans, to impose rebates for the car industry with regard to CO
that is to say, in fact, to impose cut-price legislation, and moreover, to give them money. The car industry. Especially the German car industry, which has made the most profit over the last 10 years. It is the one that is going to invest funds in tax havens. Thus, we are going to give money to Mercedes, BMW and Audi for them to put their money in tax havens. I do not agree with this.
Yes indeed, because, Mr Schulz, when you spoke just now to your colleagues from the right, I spoke to my colleagues from the right and from the left – social democrats and Christian democrats alike – who agreed with the German car industry’s lobbying to curtail the climate criteria. Yes indeed, Mr Schulz, that is the truth."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"(speeches off-microphone)"1
"2"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples