Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-11-24-Speech-3-042"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2010-11-24"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Conclusions of the European Council meeting (28-29 October) and economic governance (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20101124.4.3-042"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2010-11-24-Speech-3-0432
lpv:speaker	lp:Werner Langen2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (2009-09-30--2014-06-30)3,3 member; ECON (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3,3 substitute; Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis (2009-10-08--2011-07-31)3,3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3,3 chair; Delegation for relations with the countries of Southeast Asia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (2009-09-30--2014-06-30)3,3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP (2009-07-14--2012-02-02)3,3 unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3,3 substitute; ITRE (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3,3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I have heard a lot of criticism of the Deauville decision here, but everyone knows that, at the start of the last meeting of your Task Force, Mr Van Rompuy there were still 20 items outstanding. As they are subject to the principle of unanimity, a solution had to be found. Everyone knows that. Everyone also knows that the two largest Member States, Germany and France, are the ones who sinned against the Stability and Growth Pact in 2004, although at that time, as we also know, there was a Social Democrat/Green federal government in Germany. Mr Schulz’s scolding is therefore completely uncalled for. If we are saying today that the Stability and Growth Pact should have more bite, the first prerequisite for this is that the Member States finally abide by this Pact. What is the point of it having more bite if no one sticks to it? There has been a lack of compliance here. We have six legislative proposals, two of which are Council regulations and four are joint regulations of the Council and the European Parliament. I just do not understand some of this complaining. We will have our say in the codecision procedure. On behalf of my group, I can say that we will support the Commission’s proposals in this area. Then we will negotiate on this matter again with the Council. This is the reality. Why are we so unassuming and insult third parties who are part of this legislative process instead of exercising our own rights. Allow me to say something about the necessity of amendments to the treaty. In my opinion, the treaty was stretched to its limits on 9 May. A justification of the rescue package in accordance with Article 122 is required. The fact that the Member States do not want this because the Commission and Parliament could then possibly get involved is, in my opinion, a mistake. It will not be sufficient to amend Article 136; rather we need a solid legal basis for the rescue package and then all the other issues will resolve themselves."@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph