Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-01-18-Speech-3-030-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120118.5.3-030-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, it is an honour to welcome you here today. You will no doubt be aware of the reputation that precedes you. Because you represent a red-red-green government in Denmark, my group naturally has very particular expectations from you, not just because of your political background and this refreshing new start for Denmark, but also because, with your decisively female Scandinavian way, you represent a new force in the urgent debate concerning Europe. I could imagine your charmingly sober approach to politics, which I noted in Copenhagen, is also an instrument that you could use to challenge your German opposite number in the context of crisis politics. That is precisely what we expect from you. We expect you to take another critical look at the Treaty we have been debating since the last crisis summit. We believe that this Treaty is not just a diversion from crisis politics, but also an insult to European democracy. It not only excludes the European Parliament, but also fails to take national parliaments sufficiently into account. This is quite unacceptable.
I also believe that, for example, the European summits that are now to take place in an informal way in the future, will be difficult from Denmark’s perspective because they shift the balance of power in the Council in an unwelcome way. So much for these difficult treaty-related technical issues. I believe that such democratic questions are of enormous significance for the continued functioning of the European Union. The substance of this Treaty has been rightly criticised by the previous speakers in this House. The completely one-sided focus on stability has not only failed to resolve the crisis, but actually made it worse and I now find it almost unbearable to hear in each plenary how we are even deeper in crisis than before the last crisis summit.
This morning the World Bank hit the headlines with the news that it remains of the view that Europe is collapsing into crisis and will drag the rest of the world with it. How long can this go on?
Your programme contains some elements that indicate that you want to do things differently in your capacity as the Danish President-in-Office of the Council. Go ahead. Do not wait until halfway through your Council Presidency, but rather start the debate right now. We need these investment programmes to help the economy recover now. Your ideas on climate protection, which were very well prepared by Connie Hedegaard, and your ideas on energy efficiency, could provide the stimulus for jobs in the European Union. You have no time to lose, however.
We have already heard mention several times today of the construction of the entire financial market regulatory system. I fully agree that we must discuss the question of Eurobonds or the Redemption Fund and that this is an issue that can no longer be put off.
Let me also say a word on the role of the European Central Bank in this debate: it is still a huge problem that we believe that we can have a common currency and that we can defend it without having a truly jointly functioning European Central Bank or without authorising the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF). This message has also been repeated like a mantra by many speakers. It has been picked up and developed by the rating agencies but has not had sufficient effect in the Council or in the key Member States to date.
My plea to you, as a former colleague, as Prime Minister and as President-in-Office of the Council, is as follows: as a woman, do things better than your predecessors. Do not procrastinate, but follow your political convictions in the Council. Hungary, which is the subject of this afternoon’s debate, is an excellent example of how the Council and Commission have allowed a problem to fester, deflecting attention from it, and are now having to pay the price for the way in which the country has developed. The Commission and Council share responsibility for what happened in Hungary during the Hungarian Presidency of the Council."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples