Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-10-23-Speech-2-089-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20121023.5.2-089-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, President-in-Office, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, let me comment on the issue of women in the European Union and congratulate Ms Reding. I think she has hit exactly the right note with her proposal for quotas. I would also like to send a message to all her female colleagues and the other female Commissioners. I believe that every woman who has achieved power and influence in today’s European Union should be aware that on the one hand, this is of course due to skills and qualifications; on the other, however, it is also due to the fact that other women have campaigned for instruments such as the quota. This awareness should guide all those who are tasked with decision-making or who are in leadership roles, such as Ms Reding’s female colleagues at the Commission. Mr Barroso, I urge you not to undermine a positive initiative that enables the Commission to stand out as a beacon. On the contrary, I urge you to give Ms Reding your support.
As regards Mr Mersch, it is a great shame that Mr Mersch, of all people, appears to be undermining Ms Reding’s strategy. Indeed, let me make it clear to Mr Van Rompuy that the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance will not support this under any circumstances. Perhaps it is enough for you to know that women have a future at the European Central Bank from 2018 onwards. However, this knowledge and prospect are not enough for us! We want a woman at the centre of power in the European Central Bank today, and we are not going to be fobbed off by you.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Nobel Peace Prize has been mentioned in passing in today’s debate. I was starting to think I was mistaken. When I first heard about this decision, taken in Europe’s northern-most region, I was deeply and genuinely moved. As a European politician, I almost took it personally. I felt that this came close to being an unexpected declaration of love for this great shared European project. Of course, it also meant that I looked forward to the summit with very different expectations, Teflon-coated, perhaps. So what happened? Where was the moment of reflection? What happened to the Nobel Committee’s appeal for reflection and for ‘thinking big’ in the European Union? From my perspective, that is the crucial aspect of the award: it makes us think about what we have achieved by working together, and what we may achieve in future.
Mr Van Rompuy, it has been agreed once again that we should give ourselves more time to deal with the banking union. We can afford to do so because the European Central Bank has bought itself some time under Mr Draghi, as it did before under Mr Trichet. Once again, we have seen the crisis pass from an acute to a chronic phase. However, you should not take too long, nor should you be under any illusions, as you were once again with your speech today. In my view, at the end of December, we not only need to have the clear contours or a legal framework for supervision in the banking union. We also need to have the other two pillars in place, the two pillars which are never mentioned in the front row, namely deposit protection and the possibility of bank resolution in the European Union, which must take place in a process which is not only subject to democratic controls but also inspires confidence. In other words, there is a lot to do before the end of December.
Let me take up a point made by Mr Swoboda. Mr Van Rompuy, you said earlier that things are improving. You obviously consult a different set of statistics from mine. Perhaps we should swap. I have figures from the IMF and the World Bank which clearly show, once again, that single-minded and aggressive austerity policies do not improve matters. They do not even support the recovery of public budgets. In our crisis countries, we have higher deficits, and we also have an ailing economy, not only in the crisis countries but Europe-wide. We also have higher unemployment, especially among young people. Knowing this, I then came across a further publication from the IMF which says that fiscal consolidation can only be successful in the context of economic recovery. This requires very serious consideration, and highlights all of the shortcomings in the present policies to overcome the crisis. Economic recovery can only take place on the basis of better growth policies. I am interested to see what will happen now. I regard the comments made by Mr Tajani and Mr Oettinger almost as a threat. As for Europe 2020 – which, incidentally, they appear to have written off entirely – let me say that I cannot imagine being able to achieve sustainable economic recovery with industrial policy strategies of the kind proposed by Messieurs Oettinger and Tajani.
Finally, was it President Hollande or Chancellor Merkel? After the summit, everyone was asking who had won. If we needed any further proof that the two of them did not merit the Nobel Peace Prize and did not match up to the Nobel Committee’s expectations, it can been seen in this particular issue. Political union and deeper European integration have to be dragged out of them. Chancellor Merkel should go to the German public long before the election and explain why financial solidity on its own makes matters worse. President Hollande, for his part, should explain to the people of France why even France has to transfer sovereignty to Brussels."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples