Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-11-30-Speech-3-057-000"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20111130.14.3-057-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
". Mr President, Mr Verhofstadt, you have once again made some very pointed criticisms of Ms Merkel and Mr Sarkozy. However, we also have to deal with Mr Van Rompuy, who is closer to you in political terms than either of them. I would like to hear some clear words being spoken, particularly among the Belgians. Yes, I know, but to me you nevertheless seem to be very close. I would like us to persevere consistently with the subjects that we are debating here today. It has rightly been pointed out that the German Free Democratic Party (FDP) is in government. Also, in the Commission, as we have often remarked here, there are many liberal Commissioners whose influence always seems to me to be lacking. We agree on our assessment of the most recent summit and we have already made that clear after the night of crisis. Unfortunately, the events were exactly as described in the European Parliament. The European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF), which is being used as a lever, is a complete failure. It does not work at all. I am expressing my feelings more forcefully here than Mr Schulz. The recapitalisation of the banks, which is so urgently needed, has proved to be as ineffective as all the strict banking regulations which we have been carrying before us for the last year like the vessel containing the consecrated host. The debate on Greek debt reduction is stagnating. A bitter dispute is going on in Greece, but no one is talking about it. In contrast to the period when the crisis summit was held, we now have so-called technical governments in Italy and Greece, but for different reasons. Everyone has praised the fact that Mr Monti, for example, has taken over the government in Italy. What is happening now? As a result of following the rules laid down by Brussels, Mr Monti has the same problems as Mr Papandreou had before him. The country is in the same disastrous interest spiral, because the situation cannot be improved simply by putting in place austerity measures. We have been aware of this for a long time. What is to be done? I would like to repeat the answer to this question from the perspective of my group. In the short term, the European Central Bank (ECB) must play a different role and the Heads of State or Government must commit to this. Poland has rightly called for this to happen, but it must not always be the only Member State which is doing so. I would like to thank Mr Rostowski once again for intervening. What he said was exactly right. We need to get ready to issue Eurobonds and we are already too late. We should be starting with the ECB, but nevertheless we need to prepare for the Eurobonds. Also, we must ensure that people do not go on spreading the lie which is rife in Germany that Eurobonds mean that we in Germany will, for example, be taking over responsibility for the risks of the deficit countries and that the people in these countries will go on living the life of Riley. The Eurobonds are, of course, accompanied by a policy of solidity and solidarity. That is part of the idea behind them. Anyone who disputes that is simply running roughshod over the future of the European Union. The points quoted by Mr Verhofstadt are really alarming. The real economy and large companies are already preparing scenarios for the end of the common currency. The same article today in the Financial Times says: ‘Traders prepare for the end game’. I am not sure whether Ms Merkel and Mr Sarkozy are reading different newspapers or different analyses from the ones that I am reading. However, when I heard the fire alarm ringing here in Parliament today, I thought that it was an amplified version of the alarm signals which we should be sending out to the capitals of the Member States. It would at least be worth a try, because so far all the arguments have failed. I would like to say a final word about Treaty change. I know that this is all about acute crisis management. I hope that I have made that clear. However, when you realise that democracy cannot function under the terms of the Treaty and has fallen by the wayside, although it is still possible to say that Treaty changes take too long in an acute crisis, if a change is really needed, then it would be wrong to postpone it. I do not believe that the enemies of European integration, in other words, those who are opposed to democracy and the right-wing nationalists, would have a stronger position if we were to discuss Treaty change and a reorganisation of sovereignty now. They are not the problem. I believe that we are not doing ourselves any favours in our debates with those on the right if we delay the democratic new beginnings and the implementation of sound democratic regulations. We have debated this at length this morning in the Conference of Presidents. However, if something takes a long time, it makes no sense to put it off even longer just in order to discuss it."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
"(Heckling from Mr Verhofstadt: ‘He is a Member of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats).’)"1
lpv:videoURI

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph