Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-07-06-Speech-2-014"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100706.4.2-014"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I shall begin with a personal, albeit very important, observation. Mr Zapatero, political logic dictates that I should be glad when Angela Merkel is sad, and that I should normally share in your gladness. Tomorrow evening, however, the reverse will be the case, for Mrs Merkel and I will celebrate together, and I shall have no sympathy for you.
(
)
Mr Cohn-Bendit will also entertain us with his faulty footballing knowledge in a short while, but now I turn to the Spanish Presidency.
Mr Zapatero, the Spanish Presidency has had some outstanding successes, about which I wish to speak at this point. The successful conclusion in the last few days, after negotiations over the European External Action Service which were, in fact, extremely difficult – this is something I wish expressly to state – has been achieved in close collaboration with Baroness Ashton, with a great deal of work from fellow Members of this House. In the closing phases, however, it was the Presidency that made the decisive contribution. This is a success of the Spanish Presidency. I should particularly like to mention your Foreign Minister, Mr Moratinos, who made a significant contribution in bringing it to a successful conclusion.
The Spanish Presidency made a significant contribution to achieving the SWIFT Agreement. I should like particularly to thank Mr Rubalcaba, without whom the SWIFT Agreement would not have come about in its present form. I have the following to say to the President of the Commission. If the mechanistic thinking of the Commission and, in particular, that of Commissioner Malmström, had prevailed, we should not have had the SWIFT Agreement. The credit for this expressly belongs to Parliament and the Spanish Presidency.
I hope that we can come to a conclusion with regard to the steps that are still necessary in terms of banking supervision and financial market regulation. We have made considerable progress in this respect in these last few days. We are not at the end, but I hope that we can come to sensible compromises and sensible conclusions. Besides, we must have a leading role for Europe. We also need it because we have seen that if Europeans act as one – and this is also a success for the Spanish Presidency – then we have a great opportunity to define European standards that we can also apply internationally.
Let us look again at the reality of the last fortnight. The speculative attack on the euro has been deflected for the time being. What is happening? The speculators can see that European measures are protecting the currency, so they are now turning their attention to the United States and are speculating against the dollar. That would, incidentally, be a good argument for all those who were present at the G20 summit to say to the President of the United States and others that they should not think that the capitalists have only us in their sights. They turn to where they believe they can make their profit quickest. Currently, that is the dollar, but who knows, perhaps next time it will be the pound sterling or some other currency. What we need are worldwide rules. If we implement them now partially, at a European level, then we are doing the right thing, because we can then, as a powerful European Union, also implement them internationally. This is also a step in the right direction.
Mr Zapatero, I am grateful that, as President-in-Office of the Council, you have clearly said here that you support the Commission. I do not always have the impression that this is the case for everyone in the Council. Mr Daul is right to have referred to the defence of the Community method. What we need is a union of European institutions against this dreadful tendency towards renationalisation, which exists especially in the European Council. We must call a spade a spade, so thank you very much for singing the praises of Mr Van Rompuy. I also find him quite charming but, as a Member of this House, I must say that our interlocutor is the rotating Presidency. I have already given three examples of ways in which, with the rotating Presidency – which, incidentally, is led by politicians and not by some bureaucrats sitting within the administrative machinery in Brussels – and as politicians – and as a Minister you are also a Member of Parliament – we, as a rule, have a significantly better understanding of what happens in a parliament than some official sitting in a general secretariat, even if it is led by Mr Van Rompuy. That is why I believe that the rotating Presidency has proved its worth. Especially for us as Parliament, it is a direct interlocutor, with whom we can directly solve problems in specific legislative processes. One result of the Treaty of Lisbon, which I also consider to be a step forward, is the fact that the European institutions, if they work together, if they regard one another as mutually complementary, can have far greater success than if, as very often happens in the Council, they try to lock horns.
Overall, the Spanish Presidency was a successful Presidency. Thank you for your efforts and thank you for your attention."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples