Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-04-05-Speech-2-084-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110405.3.2-084-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, honourable Members, I am pleased to be able to speak to such a full House, the fullest since I became President of the Council
As for the current crisis, honourable Members, there is the future, and there are instruments on which important decisions have been taken, but there is of course the past. As I have already said, the past needs to be managed. Even with the best instruments that we can come up with – the facility, the stability mechanism, changing the Treaty, economic governance, the pact – we will not solve the problems of the countries that are struggling, we will not solve the problems of the banks that are still under pressure. So there is the future and there is the past.
Concerning the past, there was a lack of policy in some Member States and at European level. We need to be self-critical there. However, what we need to ensure and will ensure, and we have already taken the necessary measures, is that this crisis does not happen again in the future. In the meantime, as I have already said, we have to manage the legacy of the past, both regarding certain countries that you know about and which are in the programme – such as Greece and Ireland – and regarding other countries where we are taking measures to prevent them from going into the programme. Could we have taken those measures a year ago? No! Have there been major errors in the past? We undermined the Stability and Growth Pact seven or eight years ago. If we had not done that, we would have had much more effective instruments and we could have prevented many crises.
With regard to economic growth, honourable Members, since 2010 it has averaged 2%, which is the average for the decade between 1999 and 2008. We had economic growth in 2010, and it is averaging 2% in 2011. Should we do more? Of course we should. Are public investments the only instrument? Not at all! The internal market, the single market is extremely important. It must be developed further. There are Commission proposals on the table, and they will be discussed again in a few weeks, at the June European Council, and we will return to this matter again in the autumn.
Finally, on the subject of Libya, many criticisms can be levelled at us. However, without Europe, without European leadership, there would have been a bloodbath in Libya. Without Europe, there would have been massacres. Some of you have been very critical of the European Union. Yet we acted in time! And without Europe, nothing would have been done at global level, at United Nations level. After all the criticisms that have been voiced, I believe that we also have the right to hear that truth. Did we get things wrong in the past? Did we adopt the right policies? No! Did we correct our mistakes? Yes! And the European Union deserves credit for correcting them.
I should like to say one last thing in my own language.
I just listened to Mr Eppink, who declared that he felt let down. I, too, feel let down by so much intellectual dishonesty. I will not go into it further, but for Mr Eppink to stand there waving a photograph knowing full well that I was there in my official capacity and that that was not my personal conviction, well, I have to say that I feel very let down by him.
but I have the impression that you have not just come here to listen to me.
First of all, I would like to thank you for all your comments, both positive and negative. I was struck all the more because, within the European Council, we have to have unanimity, and we try to have unanimity between all your colleagues, from all your parties, Prime Ministers and Heads of State. There are Socialists, Christian Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals, all belonging to your political families, and every time, we try and secure agreements between them.
Someone said earlier that I must be the idealist around here, the dream maker. I do not think that is my role, but what I try to do, at least, wherever possible – and the President of the Commission can testify to this – is to act in such a way that in most cases, we end up with a convergence between the Commission proposals and the outcome of the European Council. Let me mention the example of the task force, where the Commission proposals were the basis of the task force on economic governance, and where the outcome is very close to the Commission proposals. And I will try, we will try with Parliament, to improve these proposals still further. My role, then, is to seek a consensus, but one that is also based as far as possible on the Community, and I think that in some crucial areas, I have succeeded in doing that.
Now to the ‘Euro Plus Pact’ – you know, the short paper that served as a starting point for our discussions, and the final Euro Plus Pact document – many of you, even those who belong to sceptical political groups, have said that their country should join the Euro Plus Pact. This is probably because it is not so bad after all. We have succeeded in reaching a compromise between ambitious objectives, so that economies remain competitive and public finances remain sustainable, and implementation at national level, because in most cases, the decisions we must take are national ones.
My second observation concerns methodology, if you will. Many criticisms in relation to Europe are justified in terms of substance, but are not in line with the Treaty. For example, the whole nuclear policy, the Energy Mix, comes under national jurisdiction and there is nothing I can do to change that. Even safety and security of nuclear installations come for the most part under national jurisdiction. There are Community competences, European competences, and in the conclusions of the European Council, we tried to promote them as much as possible. I do not think that the Commission has ever had such an important role in nuclear security as it has since the European Council of a few days ago. However, we still need to work within the framework of the Treaty.
People have talked about minimum wages in some countries, but that is a national competence. People have talked about inequalities, job insecurity, injustice, yet in most cases, these are measures that are part of a national framework. However, I would like to add that many measures which need to be taken now regarding competitiveness and public finances are measures that national governments ought in fact to have taken, even without European pressure. Europe is exerting additional pressure because there is, for 17 countries at least, a Community currency that needs defending. In most countries, however, the required measures need to be taken for the country’s own interest, for its own nationals, to safeguard its own future. And Europe is bringing additional pressure to bear.
Therefore let us not level any unfounded accusations against the European Union. Are our governance measures too weak? Well, the Council will work with the European Parliament to improve economic governance and, as in other cases, I am certain that compromises will be found. It may be that there is a governor of a central bank of one of the 17 countries who has a number of criticisms in relation to economic governance, but I can quote other governors or bank directors of countries close to the Netherlands who have an altogether different opinion. If necessary, I can give you the names and the quotations: that is the easiest way to work."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples