Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-09-08-Speech-3-012"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100908.3.3-012"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, firstly, this is indeed an important moment for Europe because we seem to have reached an agreement on supervision. We have achieved a lot by working together on this issue. I would like to express my thanks to the Belgian Presidency, the Commission, Mr Barnier, and my fellow Members from the various groups. We have taken a really enormous step forward, giving the lie to all those who said that Europe would no longer progress any further. On the contrary, we need to introduce stringent regulations for the internal market. We are now on the right track.
Secondly: the Ecofin Council has already made some important decisions in relation to the monitoring of the budgets of Member States. I would like to thank the Commission for the progress made. You have presented a number of proposals. We are now awaiting more proposals in relation to macro-economic coordination. Given the crisis, this is urgently needed.
However, I would now like to discuss the financial transaction tax. What we have heard from the Commission so far is a cacophony of contradictory signals. On the one hand, Mr Barnier and Mr Barroso are thankfully in support of the idea of a financial transaction tax. At the same time, Mr Šemeta rejects the proposal. I am calling on you to deal with this issue in a collegial way. You must speak with one voice. It simply will not do for Mr Šemeta to present a report containing results that have long been refuted in academic circles.
For example, there was some relevant information to be found in the study the European Parliament commissioned from the Bruegel Institute. This study refutes relevant arguments raised by Mr Šemeta. I also wonder why he is not here. He has been criticised several times in the House on this issue. Today of all days, he should face up to this debate. I also wonder whether he will now have to stay behind after class – after all, that is what has been decided: his contribution will have to be revised. Is this really going to result in a proposal to be presented by the Commission, an initiative they intend to present, or are we just to have another study document? This really is not good enough! Something else that is not good enough is to postpone the Council’s decision until France has the Presidency of the G20 Group. This is not acceptable!
However, the central countries that have rejected this proposal, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Spain, also have questions to answer. It was already known that the United Kingdom and Sweden would not be in favour. However, Spain is a member of the Euro Group. The country is governed by Social Democrats. Perhaps they should seek to establish more coherence between the good position they have adopted in this House and the positions adopted by the Spanish Government in the Council.
Finally, all I can say is that I would like greater clarity from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) here in this House regarding their position. You have just made some extremely critical comments about the financial transaction tax, although large parts of your group are in favour. I am not convinced that you are really speaking for the majority of your group. We need united action in this situation, otherwise our citizens will become cynical if we are to have cost-saving measures on the one hand, but no revenue from levying capital income in Europe on the other."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples