Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-10-21-Speech-2-071"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081021.7.2-071"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, we have already witnessed some ideological debates, and very interesting they have been. For my part, I think that now is not the time for me to get involved in this debate, but I think that there will be time for that later. For the time being, I am focussing more on immediate, urgent responses to the crisis.
I have to be absolutely straight with you here, and I can tell you that, if it were not for the leadership of President Sarkozy and – I think I can say this – also the contribution of the Commission, we would not have reached a consensus in this European Council to retain the objectives we adopted a year ago.
The truth is that, faced with a financial situation like the one we are in now, governments are – quite naturally, I would say – becoming more defensive, more prudent. Perhaps they want to fall back to some less ambitious positions. And that is a challenge that we must take on together, as I really do think that it would be a tragedy if Europe abandoned its ambitions for the fight against climate change.
It would be a tragedy because the main objection that some people have to the package is that we would be making a sacrifice without others doing the same. In fact, though, if we want the others to come with us, we must not, at this stage, give any indication that we are scaling back our ambitions. It is precisely at a time like this that we need to stick to the ‘three times twenty’ objectives that we set last year, and that is why the message needs to be very strong. I should like to commend the role of President Sarkozy, and also that of all the members of the European Council; I should also like to express my appreciation to Chancellor Angela Merkel. It was under her Presidency a year ago that we adopted these objectives, and I hope that we are not now going to water down our ambitions.
I can say it too, you know – it is interesting, Mr Schulz. I cannot but endorse what has just been said. I really do think that we can have political differences and different ideologies, but that – particularly in a situation like the one we are now in – we need to unite, not move apart.
I do not think that any political force in this Chamber can claim a monopoly on European ideas. Throughout the history of Europe, it has been the contributions of the Christian democrats, the socialists, the liberals, and others on the right, the left and in the centre that have created political Europe.
I quite understand the political debate, and I certainly do not want to play down the importance of the ideological debate, but I nonetheless think that, in a situation like this, it would be worthwhile for everyone who believes in the ideals of Europe and who thinks that Europe needs to play an increasingly major role in the world to establish a platform of consensus. After all, the world – not just Europeans but the whole world – is looking to Europe to put forward certain solutions.
For my part, you can rest assured that it is in this spirit of consensus – with respect for the different political forces, of course, but, if I may say so, beyond the different party positions – that we, the three institutions, the Commission, Parliament and the Council, will be able to work together to make our Europe stronger.
In any event, I should like to say this: our analysis of the causes of this crisis clearly shows that there have been regulatory shortcomings, particularly in the United States. Certain sectors within this market were not regulated, and that is what sparked the crisis. However, our analysis also shows that the underlying cause of the crisis is undoubtedly linked to certain fundamental imbalances that can be found both in the US economy and in the global economy.
The truth – as many economists have stressed and continue to do so – is that it would be difficult to sustain the sort of public debt levels that we see in the United States, and that it is the countries with the most debt that are the largest consumers, whereas those with larger reserves consume the least.
There are fundamental problems here in terms of imbalance in the public debt, the public deficit. To put it simply, if the United States had had a stability and growth pact, this financial crisis might not have happened: when the macroeconomic foundations are solid, we have a much greater chance of resisting these problems of gaps, of shortcomings, in regulation.
It is true that there were also regulatory problems. Not because the financial market is not regulated – quite the contrary, it is probably the most highly regulated sector of the economy, even in the United States. Not because we do not have regulation in Europe – on the contrary, we have a great deal of regulation in this sector. It is, however, true that there were shortcomings in the supervision mechanisms, which, we should remember, are essentially national systems.
This is an area in which the European Commission and the European Central Bank does not really have any remit – the supervision mechanisms are essentially national in nature. It is also true that we need to look into what we can do from a legislative point of view, and in that respect I welcome the efforts of the European Parliament. It is true that, for many years now, the European Parliament has been tabling excellent reports on some of these issues, and we are ready to work with you.
It is worth remembering, though, that, just as ‘no man is an island’, no institution is an island, and the Commission is working with both Parliament and the Council on these issues. Let us be quite clear: a few weeks ago – not years, not months, a few weeks ago – it would not have been possible to change some of these rules, because, as you know full well, some of the Member States would have been fundamentally opposed. That is the truth of the matter.
That is why we need to understand that the conditions are now in place for us to make some changes – consensual changes, I hope – not only for reform in Europe, but also so that Europe can put forward global reforms to the financial system.
The second question relates to the ‘climate change package’, and I should like to thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your comments and for your support. On the institutional question, first of all – I think that President Sarkozy has already explained this very clearly, but allow me to say this on behalf of the Commission – we are not conflating respect for well-established decision-making procedures, in particular codecision and the central role played by the European Parliament, with the need for a strong consensus among the Member States on something as important as the climate and energy package. These two aspects are neither incompatible nor contradictory, but complementary. I can assure you that, alongside the Presidency, we are working actively and tirelessly to reach an ambitious but balanced compromise with Parliament."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples