Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-07-03-Speech-2-067-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2012-07-03"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Conclusions of the European Council meeting (28-29 June 2012) (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20120703.5.2-067-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2012-07-03-Speech-2-068-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Barry Madlener2
lpv:spokenAs	member; NA (2009-07-14--2012-09-19)3 unknown; Partij voor de Vrijheid (2009-07-14--2012-09-19)3 substitute; ECON (2012-01-19--2012-07-16)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee (2009-09-16--2012-09-09)3 member; AFET (2012-01-19--2012-09-09)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Mr Farage is absolutely right. The state of affairs surrounding the ESM Treaty is obviously unacceptable and undemocratic. I will explain to you why that is the case, Mr Van Rompuy. The Council has approved two major amendments to the ESM Treaty. Under the first amendment, support will, from now on, be granted directly to banks and will no longer have to go to Member States. The second amendment is that, from now on, loans from the ESM will no longer enjoy preferential status. Mr President, the Council has thus proposed such a crucial amendment of the text of the treaty that the treaty must be ratified again. The Netherlands is required to contribute EUR 40 billion to this. We are talking about a substantial amount here, namely, more than EUR 5 000 per Dutch household. It goes without saying that such a treaty, with such financial implications, requires a careful ratification process. Our democracy requires that, Mr Van Rompuy. Parliament is currently in the final stages of ratifying the ESM. However, our members have wrongly assumed that no direct bank support was possible. Even the Dutch Prime Minister Rutte has said that it would be undesirable for the ESM to provide direct support to banks. And now, all of a sudden, it seems that that will take place nonetheless. This means that Parliament has been misinformed or Mr Swoboda is perhaps right in saying that Prime Minister Rutte is saying one thing in Brussels to you, Mr Van Rompuy, and another at home. I would like clarification on that, Mr Van Rompuy. Mr Wim Voermans, who is Professor of Constitutional and Administrative Law at the University of Leiden, has also investigated the legal implications of this. Quote: ‘Direct payment to banks is not possible under the current treaty. The treaty would have to be changed and re-ratified’. Unquote. Article 12 of the ESM is crystal clear: ESM stability support may only be provided to ESM Members and, therefore, not to banks. The second amendment, too, which means that the ESM loans to Spain no longer have preferential status, represents a crucial change in the conditions of the treaty. Parliament has been put on the right track. To conclude, Mr President: the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV) is of the opinion that this approach is undemocratic, unlawful and unacceptable."@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph