Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-12-15-Speech-2-297"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20091215.18.2-297"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the reason why we, along with other Members here present, have requested this debate is because a new iron curtain has emerged with the economic crisis, Commissioner. This monetary iron curtain separates those outside the euro area from those within it.
Many problems that today affect the majority of the Baltic States, for example – you mentioned Poland, but I could, of course, mention Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary – are due to the fact that they are not in the euro area. Therefore, they must continue to use their local currency, and this is giving rise to harmful, devastating consequences at present. We may well talk of an economic recovery, but in those countries, there is no economic recovery for the time being. In some of these countries, the unemployment rate is over 20%, and public sector salaries have had to be cut by more than 20%. The figures relating to their economic growth are really very negative.
The important thing is that we allow them to join the euro area as soon as possible. However, at present, they are suffering the harmful effects of this situation. Clearly, the idea is not to change the conditions of the Stability and Growth Pact – no one has asked for that. They should not be changed because, as you rightly said, the euro area has acted as a defence against the economic and financial crisis. All the same, we must help these countries in a different way, not by changing the conditions of the Stability and Growth Pact, but by offsetting the negative effect that they are suffering because they are outside the system. If we do not do so, it will be several more years before they join the euro area.
We have made a number of suggestions, we have drawn up a six-point plan and asked the European Commission to take it into account. We therefore need the European Central Bank, the European Commission and the European Investment Bank to cooperate with one another. Which measures must be implemented in this context? Firstly, the Central Bank must also provide liquidity to local banks. It has granted liquidity to banks in Western Europe; it has also indirectly provided resources to Swedish banks, for example, but some local banks have received nothing from the European Central Bank.
These six points incorporate other proposals. For example, why not increase the proportion of EU funding and reduce the proportion of State funding of social, regional and cohesion funds, and so on? Indeed, the Member States do not currently have the budgetary resources to finance certain projects. We could therefore move towards having, for example, 75% of funding by Europe and 25% by the Member States, in particular, the Baltic States.
I have mentioned just two of the six very practical ideas that we have put forward and on which a decision can be taken by the European Central Bank or by the Commission or the European Investment Bank. This is what these countries need. Personally speaking, I do not see it as progress that the International Monetary Fund is intervening in these countries and dictating how they should behave. In my view, it is up to Europe instead to decide what must be done.
That is the request we are making. In any case, I have been to these countries and I have been shocked by the fact that these people feel abandoned by the European Union in their daily struggle. I urge the next European Commission to come back with a credible plan for the states of Central and Eastern Europe and, more specifically, for the Baltic States."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples