Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-04-05-Speech-2-081-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110405.3.2-081-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"−
Madam President, honourable Members, regarding the assessment of the last European Council, I believe that the analysis I presented was fairly well balanced and fairly reasonable.
Even regarding the social issue, which I now wish to talk to you about, the Commission went to great lengths to ensure that the 2020 Strategy places more emphasis on social aspects, as well as on education. It was not easy, however. Some governments were saying that, in line with the principle of subsidiarity, it was not up to Europe or the European Union to take direct action on social aspects and education.
Let us now try, within the framework of the 2020 Strategy – where it was nonetheless possible to reach a certain consensus on the inclusion, for instance, of the fight against poverty and social exclusion – to develop this policy, and also to encourage investment, particularly in education and innovation.
However, in that respect, let me tell you something that you may not be aware of. The Commission suggested, some time ago – two years ago I think – that emergency food aid be provided for some Europeans, because there are now people in Europe, too, who do not have enough to eat. Recently, I, together with Joseph Daul, Chair of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), visited the food bank here in the Bas-Rhin. There are poverty-related problems in Europe. Well, did you know that two governments took the Commission to the Court of Justice because the Commission had put in place a mechanism for helping the poorest in Europe? That is the situation.
Let us be absolutely clear. The Commission is in favour of a Europe that is more ambitious with regard to governance; it is in favour of fair growth and of more social justice at European level. However, at the same time, we need to have Parliament and the Member States on board. And we have to fight for that. Therefore, in my opinion, to criticise the Commission really would be to choose the wrong target, since it spearheaded the fight for a more social, fairer Europe and for much more credible governance.
At the same time, let us be absolutely clear on this as well. I do not think it helps Europe to say that the current problem is Europe’s problem, as if the responsibility did not lie at all with certain governments, which let their debt reach unsustainable levels or their banks have growth several times that of their gross domestic product. Governments are also partly responsible. That responsibility is essential. That is why we must now find solutions based on solidarity, but also act responsibly. That is why, for instance, I am proud that the Commission and I have supported the proposal aimed at lowering the interest rates paid by Greece, and we are doing the same thing now for Ireland. We think that this is the right thing to do, not only to avoid imposing extremely heavy costs on our Greek and Irish fellow citizens, but also to ensure that the debt is sustainable. Consequently, it is in that spirit of solidarity and responsibility that we can find common answers that will also enable us, I hope, to avoid a problem that some of you have alluded to and which concerns me, namely the problem of a certain division in Europe, in particular a division between North and South, between centre and periphery. I think that the Europe that we want to build is a Europe of solidarity, not a first-class and second-class Europe, but a Europe with which all Europeans can identify.
I have already defended, in word and in deed, the financial transaction tax in the G20 on behalf of the European Union. This was rejected by a huge number of our G20 partners.
The question that we are now discussing is whether, at European level, we can – or we should – have a financial transaction tax or not. Let us be honest, once again. Several Member States fundamentally oppose it. They will not agree. What I said at the last European Council was that the Commission is now making impact assessments of different options for the financial sector and will soon come forward with proposals. It was very important that the Commission made that announcement to the European Council because at least in the conclusions of the European Council there is a commitment to look at the proposals that the Commission will put forward for financial taxation. I believe that, in terms of justice, it is important that the financial sector – and to a large extent at least some of the behaviour in the financial sector was at the origin of this crisis – also contributes to the response to the crisis. I think this is basic in terms of fairness. That is my own position and, I have no doubt, the position of the Commission. I will come forward with proposals on this matter.
The same goes for the CCCTB. There is some opposition in some quarters in the Council, but the Commission has put forward the proposal and we will fight for it because we believe the CCCTB is important for the completion of the single market. This is exactly the approach we are defending.
We have been discussing process and instruments for a very long time. Now is the time to put process and instruments at the service of the substance. Process and instruments are important, but they are at the service of the substance and cannot substitute for it. The challenge we need to resolve is our economic renewal. The truth is that, in order to be able to invest, we need confidence. Confidence depends on our capacity to modernise, to innovate and to become more sustainable and more competitive. Let us not confuse cause and effect. Investment will be attracted if we implement Europe 2020 quickly and decisively, and if we pursue our goals of a Europe that is sustainable and competitive in the spirit of solidarity and also in solidarity with all the Member States, including Portugal.
I think it is right to recognise that we have made important progress on the structure. If we compare what we have now with what we did not have beforehand, it is undoubtedly an important step forward. There has been, for instance, the creation of a permanent stability mechanism, which was not even provided for by the Treaty. Furthermore, this Parliament, by an overwhelming majority, supported a limited reform of the Treaty in order to create a new instrument, an instrument which did not even exist before.
Mr Schulz, you know very well that in my capacity as President of the Commission, I cannot interfere in Portuguese domestic policy. If one day you cease being Chair of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament and you have other duties, I am sure that you will carry out those new duties completely independently and that you will not interfere in your group’s internal matters.
However, at the same time, I have to tell you that a political crisis in Portugal has not made things any easier, since Portugal was already in a rather difficult situation. Despite this, we the European institutions also need to respect national democracy and the decisions of national parliaments, and we now hope that Portugal will find the best way out of this.
In any case, the Commission stands by Portugal in helping it find the best solutions in accordance, of course, with the commitments it has made and with certain responsibilities it has towards its European partners. I believe that it is in this spirit of active solidarity and responsibility that we can tackle the crisis.
It is true that there have been rather pessimistic views expressed here today. Moreover, as Europeans’ elected representatives, you reflect the dominant feeling in Europe. While it is only natural that we are concerned, I think that we should have the political courage and perceptiveness to show confidence in our European project, because I do not believe that we will be able to restore confidence in Europe by being pessimistic. The Commission is ready to carry on working enthusiastically with you, with the European Council, with the Council, with all the institutions, towards a stronger, more sustainable, fairer and more competitive Europe.
Therefore, let us be intellectually honest in our assessment. I believe there has been substantial progress in terms of the reaction to the crisis, in terms of lessons learnt with regard to the shortcomings we have seen in the past, whether at instrument level or policy level. However at the same time, I said, very clearly in fact, that this might not be enough. It is one thing to have the structure, the architecture, but it is another to have the policies to be applied. Indeed, the real test will be to see, after this, what governments, and also our institutions, will be able to deliver in terms of substance. Substance is more important than instruments.
At the same time however, I have told you, with great transparency I think, that when we talk about ambition, the Commission would have preferred to have gone further in some areas. We highlighted for instance the fact that for the permanent stability mechanism, we were in favour of more flexibility. Unfortunately it was not possible to reach a consensus for this higher level of ambition. Having said that, I think it would be a mistake to reject the gains we have achieved.
Staying on the subject of ambition, I would like to emphasise this important aspect, because some have suggested that the Commission should submit other proposals. Practically everything you have said, the Commission has already proposed. On 9 May 2010, the Commission – myself and Commissionner Rehn – tabled a legislative proposal relating to a wholly Community-based approach to the stability mechanism.
We proposed the pooling, for instance, of debt management, what are referred to as joint and several guarantees. This was rejected by our Member States. Not by you, but obtaining the Member States’ approval is essential, Mr Verhofstadt. We presented the text at the euro area summit. It was rejected by a large majority of Member States. That is the reality.
On the specific matter of unanimity or majority rule for the permanent stability mechanism, I myself suggested the latter; I insisted, in the presence of the President of the European Council and certain Heads of State or Government, that they should accept a qualified majority rule. However, it was rejected.
Consequently, one can always insist, but the clauses need to be clear and you need to know exactly who to address your requests to. The Commission has made ambitious proposals, for instance in relation to stress tests; it is the European Commission and the European Central Bank who have proposed credible and transparent tests for the European Bank.
Concerning Eurobonds, the Commission has been talking about Eurobonds for at least 30 years I think. This was rejected by some of our Member States. I myself suggested here – and I can tell you that I will do the same for the financial perspective – that we could now at least have project bonds for financing investments at draft European budget level. We will see at that point who will be there to support this approach in favour of European investment. And maybe then, some of you could convince us with your own European parties to support this more ambitious approach to the financial perspective. This may be an opportunity for us to work even more closely. That is all on the issue of ambition at European level."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples