Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-09-12-Speech-3-019-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120912.4.3-019-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Presidents, I should like to make one comment first of all. Mr Barroso, when you talk of crisis, do not forget the ecological crisis, the environmental constraints, which you failed to mention in your description of the crisis today. We are facing a poly-crisis, a number of crises, and the ecological crisis is one of the most important crises, along with the financial and economic crisis and the democratic crisis. If you were to rework this speech, be sure to add this in.
Secondly, Mr Barroso, you said: ‘Europe needs a new way of thinking, it needs a new direction’. Yes, but if we want to take a new direction, we will need a compass. In what direction do we want to go? This is where the debate between Mr Lamberts and Mr Verhofstadt is interesting, because we do need to be honest. I agree with Mr Verhofstadt when he says that the Council and governments have been unable to come up with responses to the crisis. They have been hedging their bets. We are going to help Greece, a little, a lot, passionately, madly, not all … We never knew what the true position of governments was. Even today, we do not know. It is true, then, that the Council is incapable. Yet, Mr Verhofstadt, Parliament is also incapable, the European institutions are also incapable. When Parliament was not capable of voting for the development of transnational lists for the next elections, it clearly showed us that it is not up to the debate that we need.
Back to the compass, then. I am absolutely convinced that Europe now needs to be federalised. I do not agree with what you have picked up from Jacques Delors, a federation of nation-States. Yes, we need a post-national Europe which is not just a federation of states. That is what we need in Europe. Obviously, in a Senate, a second chamber, the States will play an important role in European legislation, but what is unacceptable today is that we have a Council that acts as executive and legislator at the same time. That is no longer possible. Montesquieu would be turning in his grave. A legislator cannot be an executive and an executive cannot be a legislator. We must denounce this for the sake of progress.
You spoke about the budget, Mr Barroso. You are right, but, come on, be honest. We must use our compass to stay on the course towards federalisation. I would like to give those of you, here, that do not know it, some information. When the US federal budget was set up by Roosevelt, in 1932, it was 1% of US GDP. In 1945, it was 7% of GDP. In 2012, it is 23% of GDP. As long as the EU budget represents only 1% of European GDP, well, we cannot have meaningful European social policy. It will definitely not work.
This means that in the next five years, the EU budget should rise from 1% to 5% of the European gross domestic product. That is the real debate that needs to be had with the nation States. This increase must be achieved using our own resources. It is not through national contributions, the very embodiment of national self-interests, that we will manage to build Europe.
Let me put this simply. Mr Barroso, you spoke of flexicurity. Having a flexible labour market with secure working conditions is obviously right. Take a country like Greece, where unemployment has reached astounding levels. Do you believe that, if we were to now organise a flexible labour market, like the one you want, this country can pay for the security? If we now want flexicurity for some poor countries, whether that is Greece, Spain Italy or any other country with a serious unemployment crisis, they will need support for that security, and that will have to come from the EU budget. Otherwise, we will not succeed and nor will they. If you want there to be a genuine social pact, for Europe to have the means to help those States who are not able to provide security, like the United States can do with their budget, well, we will not achieve this with 1%, and not even with the amount proposed by the Commission.
If we grab the compass today and steer Europe into the right direction of federalisation, we can give Greece the social redemption fund immediately. We need to ultimately tell Greece the truth. The truth is that you can still have an adjustment policy, but that is it. We need to be honest and open. Greece obviously needs more time; we will obviously need to give money to Greece. A woman working part-time in a supermarket in Greece earns EUR 150. This cannot be the case anymore. Let me tell you something, ladies and gentlemen: the Greek right-wing are now going door-to-door giving families EUR 20, EUR 30 When you earn EUR 150, 20 or 30 is a lot. The extreme right in Greece is doing what the Islamists are doing in other countries. Is European Union therefore not able, in this crisis situation, to provide a social redemption fund to help crisis-hit countries like Greece so that Greek citizens turn back to Europe and not to the extreme right? You can see fascism spreading in Greek society.
I have said what I want to say. The notion of a compass is very straightforward: more opportunities for the European Union to intervene, a meaningful European budget, a social redemption fund for crisis-hit countries in Europe With this and the proposals made by Mr Verhofstadt and Mr Daul, we can bring back the majority of European citizens towards Europe."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149 (8))."1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples