Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-06-22-Speech-3-168-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110622.16.3-168-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, we have had countless trialogue meetings, some late at night, with other Members, the Commission and the Hungarian Presidency. I would like to begin by thanking my fellow Members and our counterparts for the work that we have completed together.
The message from the Ecofin Council is that everyone needs to shoulder their responsibilities. My immediate reaction is to say: ‘All right, then, let us genuinely face up to our responsibilities.’ Not with a huge fanfare, not so as to be able to say that we reached an agreement rapidly, but with an eye on the financial problems in the euro area and the European Union and in an attempt to come up with some proper solutions. Certainly, that was my group’s motto in these negotiations. I doubt that the markets and our citizens would believe in speedy but superficial solutions.
In our estimation, substantial improvements are needed. We have, I think, already achieved some of the objectives that we set ourselves. Let me remind you that we are not the only ones with these aims: on several occasions, the European Central Bank has called on Parliament to beef up the Commission’s already bold proposals. We have therefore firmed up the rules. That was one of our guiding principles: not for the pleasure of rule-making, but because breaking common rules in a community based on the rule of law endangers the single currency. We have introduced penalties for fraud. Unfortunately this is one of the lessons that we have had to learn from the euro’s early years. As Mrs Ford said, we have also tried to impose a degree of order on national budgetary procedures, if only so as to be able to compare practices in different countries. One point was particularly important to me: if we go to our citizens with nothing to say other than ‘we have increased automaticity’, as the newspapers are putting it, they will be left with the impression that some mysterious machine has been turned on in Brussels and will rap them on the knuckles whenever something goes wrong.
If we want stricter rules, they need to be more intelligent, but above all we need more democratic debate and more cross-border discussions. This is why we have proposed – and I would like to thank all the Members who have supported me on this point – creating what we have termed an economic dialogue, which must be proportionate. There is no threat to national constitutions; it is simply an expression of our desire for more discussion within the euro area in particular, but also in the Europe of 27. We want this House to be the forum for that transparent dialogue between the European institutions and the Member States, and in particular a place where Member States can voice their problems and explain their positions. Some countries are lagging behind, others are further ahead, some are on the fringes, some have larger populations: we need to bear all that in mind. I am delighted to see that this week in the German media Mr Habermas has again stressed that increasing democratic legitimacy is a vital necessity. I would say to Mrs Ford that we are not arguing in favour of enhancing our powers, we are calling for a greater role for those mandated by the people to defend their interests in Brussels.
There are other important points, particularly on the macroeconomic side. I believe that all Member States need to be subject to common surveillance. Symmetry is an important issue. The Council should understand what this means: intelligent symmetry that distinguishes between deficit and surplus, but symmetry all the same.
Let me close by mentioning Eurosecurities, which were one of the things that I championed. I would like to make an appeal to all political group leaders: you cannot claim to support Eurosecurities but vote against them. You might argue that you want more, I myself would have liked to go further, but I do fully appreciate the efforts that Commissioner Rehn is willing to make. Let me remind you that the Commissioner himself put forward proposals in May 2010 in accordance with the Commission’s legislative initiative. We want to put those proposals back on track.
We want the euro finally to take on the mantle of a world currency, we want a large and liquid market, which will reduce the cost of borrowing. We want part of that borrowing – a limited amount, of course – to be shared in the long term using a full-blown market regulatory instrument. Consequently, I hope that tomorrow’s vote will be favourable and that all those who claim to be in favour of Eurosecurities will discuss the issue in a spirit of open-mindedness rather than based on ideological prejudices."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples