Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-07-03-Speech-2-055-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120703.5.2-055-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr Van Rompuy, it is possible that this summit could go down as a turning point in the history of the European Union and of the euro area. A lot of things were decided that could take us forward in a positive way, if they are now also approved by the Heads of Government which decided them – and I will come back to that – and if the Commission and this Parliament now also turn the specific proposals into legislation, for example, on the banking union.
I very much appreciate what the President of the Commission said on this. As I have already said, we could have had the banking union long ago. I still do not understand – perhaps that is not your fault, Mr Van Rompuy – why the President of Parliament was not invited to the deliberations. We are not talking about detailed legislation here; we are talking about the future of Europe. You are debating the future of Europe without a representative of the only directly elected body in the European Union. I consider that scandalous. It is an attitude that I find unacceptable.
Discuss with us, invite us! As the example of the banking union shows, nearly all the groups of this House come up with good ideas – we just think of them earlier than the Council. It might not be a bad thing for the Council to come up with these ideas earlier for once, too, through discussions with the European Parliament. Listen to the European Parliament a bit more and invite the President of Parliament to attend your deliberations.
We are saying goodbye, goodbye to Merkozy, goodbye to a structure in which two parties – let me correct that: one party – believed they could decide what would and would not happen in Europe. I am very grateful to President Hollande for having strengthened the voice of social democracy. I am likewise very grateful to Mario Monti, who has shown though the same persistence as Chancellor Merkel, that things cannot continue as before. I would also like to thank Mr Rajoy, because Mr Rajoy has also commented that there need to be changes in Europe if we are not to end up with a fatal crisis of the euro area and of Europe as a whole. We can now see light at the end of the tunnel, although people are right to say that we have not yet come through the tunnel. Nonetheless, we can see light. It is now a matter of moving towards that light.
There are two possible economic cycles that we must decide between. One is austerity, which reduces growth and investment and increases the deficit. That is the cycle we are in. The other cycle is growth and investment, which reduces the deficit and improves budgetary equilibrium and thus, in turn, growth and employment. The figures today show that we have the highest unemployment rate in the euro area, so it is high time that we implemented what we decided at the summit and do even more besides. We must promise the unemployed that we really will implement these things, because they deserve it.
This does not mean abandoning reforms. Would anyone say that Mr Monti is not carrying out reforms in Italy? If so, they should come out and say it here. Would anyone say that Mr Rajoy is not carrying out reforms in Spain? If so, they should say it here. What use are reforms, however, if there is no growth to support the reforms? What was decided at the summit is actually the only chance we have of enabling the reforms to succeed at all, which is why it is the right thing to do.
Let me be quite clear, however, in saying that there are two prime ministers – as I understand it – who have already backed down from what was decided at the summit, who have said that they will not be able to support it. I have some questions for the prime ministers of the Netherlands and Finland. Were you asleep? It was late at night, so perhaps you were. Did you not understand what it was about? Or do you want to say something different at home to what you say in Brussels? Whichever way, it is scandalous. Mr Van Rompuy, I ask you to call on the two prime ministers to acknowledge the outcome of the summit.
I ask the Commission to now submit swift proposals for the banking union and much more. The Commission and the European Parliament indicated as far back as two years ago how important it was to have real European banking supervision. Back then, the Council and its members said it was all much too much, we have to shoulder the responsibility – not knowing or not wanting to know how the financial systems are linked together and networked and that we need this European supervision.
We could have had all this already. All of which leads me onto another essential point, Mr Van Rompuy, and that is the relationship of the Council and some prime ministers or ministers with the European Parliament. Let me start with Schengen. What was done is scandalous. We have made this quite clear to the Council Presidency. It is not acceptable. I am very grateful to you, President Barroso, that today you reiterated quite clearly your support for this.
The European patent: exactly when, Mr Van Rompuy, did the European Council start making legislation at midnight? That is not the Council’s job. The Council is mandated to make legislation with the European Parliament, but not on its own. Most prime ministers, and I do not blame them for this, do not even know in detail what you took out of the regulation. Is it really such a great solution – I am still waiting for an answer from Mr Callanan on this – for the United Kingdom to now propose three seats? Perhaps the UK would also like to have an additional seat of the European Parliament in London – that is quite possible too, before or after the referendum. I do not know what Mr Cameron has in mind."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples