Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-04-07-Speech-3-058"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100407.4.3-058"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"−
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I shall be very brief following on from what was said by the Vice-President of the European Commission. There are just a few points that I wish to stress.
There is a great deal of work to do. Some people have asked me: have penalties been applied or are they envisaged for failure to observe certain economic- or employment-related directives? Well, in such cases, the Treaty has to be changed, it has to be amended. Penalties may be applied only where they are provided for by the Treaty. The Treaty does not provide for this. Should we discuss this within the task force? If some people wish to put proposals on the table, they will be discussed, but penalties cannot be imposed that run counter to the Treaty of Lisbon.
As far as a free-trade area between the United States, Europe and others is concerned, right now I believe that the main job to be done is the one that Mr Lamy and others are embarking on, that of making the Doha Round a success. I believe that that is the top priority. He has sounded the alarm, and rightly so. A major protectionist movement has certainly been avoided in Europe. We have avoided that, but we must do more, we must go further.
In fact, we face some very great challenges in three areas. There is the climate challenge, for which there is the Copenhagen Accord, but the promises made in terms of reducing CO
emissions are not enough to meet the few objectives that were laid down in the Copenhagen Accord – in other words, the objective to ensure that the temperature does not exceed the pre-industrial level by more than two degrees.
As well as the climate challenge, there is the challenge for international trade and the challenge for international financial regulation; some of you rightly spoke about this. We therefore have an extremely important international agenda, and Europe must play a very major role at the G20 and within other bodies so that progress is made at an international and global level.
Why not include the internal market in the five objectives? Indeed, the internal market is an instrument, and it must be regulated via a large number of these objectives. In the area of research and development and in others, we must use all the resources of the internal market. We must develop it further, but it is not an end in itself. It is an instrument, but an important one. We are keenly awaiting Professor Monti’s suggestions on how to improve the internal market, but it is an extremely important asset. Just as there is the common currency, there is the common market. It must be developed further to help increase growth and employment.
Some of you have asked, ‘What is the point of all this?’ Well, the point is to have sufficient economic growth so that we can finance our social model properly, and it is also to serve a European Union that wants to play a role in the world but which cannot do so without being a greater economic force. We cannot play a role in our world if we are not really a great, a very great, economic force.
Since Mrs Van Brempt asked me this question, I should like to reply in Dutch. I am talking to her empty seat, but I shall say it anyway: I do not really understand why she thinks this a disgrace. It is the very first time the fight against poverty has been included in five key objectives, and yet we are told that it is a disgrace, that we have not gone far enough and that we must take a resit. It is the very first time. I am pleased, therefore – proud, even – that we and the Commission joined battle on this and were able to include the fight against social exclusion and against poverty in these five key objectives. Of course, we need to identify the right indicators, and this is not such an easy task; it is much harder than many people think. To reiterate, I by no means feel the need to turn up for a resit in June. In that month we shall be continuing to implement what we decided on 25 March in the usual way. I am very pleased, therefore, that we have broken with the past and made poverty a top priority in the European Union.
Mr President, I shall confine myself to these few comments and observations.
Although I have not responded to all the comments, I repeat, it is not because I have not listened, but because we are short of time.
Many of the speeches consisted of comments, not questions. I have therefore noted them, and I will give them some thought.
Firstly, the famous mechanism put in place for the Greek crisis, as it has been called over the last few weeks and months, unfortunately. Many of you have called for more Europe. That is a worthy argument, but we must work within the framework of the Treaty of Lisbon. The Treaty of Lisbon is very clear. It does not include so-called bailout clauses. It did not foresee this kind of situation.
In any case, I thank you for your important and interesting contribution to this debate on a subject that is crucial for the European Union, namely this strategy relating to what we call ‘employment and growth’, the 2020 strategy.
Therefore, we must find something. Having demanded that the Greek Government assume responsibility – which it has done, and it has taken some measures – we must invent a financial aid mechanism that respects the letter and the spirit of the Treaty of Lisbon. That is why the European Commission has proposed a mechanism of bilateral loans managed by the Commission. That is why many Member States, including the Dutch Parliament, have demanded that the International Monetary Fund intervene.
It is not just one or two governments that have demanded this; many more have requested it. Why? Because they have paid money into the International Monetary Fund in recent times so that it can actually fulfil its task of providing timely financial assistance. Indeed, Europe has contributed a very large amount.
As Belgian Prime Minister, I contributed on behalf of my country something in the region of EUR 5 billion, and thus certain members – their parliaments and governments – have questioned why we cannot draw on these financial resources that have been made available to the International Monetary Fund in order to help a European country, after the effort made by the European countries.
Therefore, something had to be found, an exchange in kind, something creative that respects the Treaty. As for those who are calling for more Europe, the first thing they have to do is to work – I repeat – in the spirit of the Treaty of Lisbon. The mechanism is, of course, a compromise mechanism, and it is one that had to be found because other mechanisms were not provided for in the Treaty of Lisbon.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Greek Government has not asked for the two-week-old agreement to be reviewed; it has not done so at all. Moreover, the Greek finance minister said this very clearly yesterday. He did not, I repeat once again, request financial assistance. He hopes that once the results of his efforts are visible, the spreads will decrease.
Therefore, making all kinds of statements and spreading all kinds of rumours is very harmful to Greek taxpayers, because not only does it not help anyone, it is also to the detriment of those who have to endure a number of measures because action was not taken quickly enough in their country previously.
As for economic governance, Mr Šefčovič spoke about this; let us be very clear, the European Council works within its remit laid down in Article 15 of the Treaty. It gives guidance and it defines the main policy guidelines to be followed, but it is not an executive power, it is not a legislative power. Therefore, it is certainly not a government in the constitutional sense of the word. It does, however, coordinate, monitor, provide a certain impetus and, as the Treaty clearly states, give guidance. That is the political sense of economic governance, but it should certainly not be understood in the constitutional sense of the word."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"2"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples