Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-05-23-Speech-3-536-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120523.22.3-536-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, I am afraid that the two-minute time limit I was given is very short. I will do my best to answer as fully as possible, especially for those who have stayed until the end of the discussion, but I am afraid that I will need a little more time.
The time has come. The most important meeting is tonight, partly here, but also in Brussels. The time has come to change the macro-economic policies, to allow the peripheral countries and regions of the European Union to regain their growth potential and provide job opportunities for people, and especially for young people who are now excessively affected by unemployment.
This is my conclusion for today, and I thank you for this extremely important discussion.
First of all, I am very grateful to those who noticed that in my introduction, I spoke about action: many actions which we have already taken and to which we are already committed. I can give a more detailed reply on three areas and also some more information than was given in the introduction, starting with the Youth Guarantee.
You probably know that this is not the first time the Commission has launched a discussion on the Member States and the Youth Guarantee. Thanks to Ms Turunen and others in this House, we included the Youth Guarantee in the Europe 2020 flagship initiative and we immediately launched a debate. To be very frank with you, it bounced back from the Member States because there was a lot of complacency that the recovery would resolve all the problems automatically. Now we have relaunched it and, thanks to the Danish Presidency, there has already been a very constructive debate in Council about the Youth Guarantee. In my view, there is an emerging consensus. Of course, we have to discuss many details, but I am very hopeful that we can reach a constructive conclusion on this by the end of this year.
Regarding the funds, they are very important and we have done a lot of work, especially in the eight countries, for reallocation. I gave you a figure in my introduction. It applies not only to the European Social Fund, but also to the Regional Development Fund, because sometimes, there is a need to cross the border between the two.
There are some very good projects – that was also a question – which I saw myself, like the one in Tuscany. This is a regionally organised programme which gives a lot of support to young people to start their career, to begin living independently and to receive training. I also discussed with Minister Diamantopoulou a new ESF programme on start-ups in Greece, which is also supported by the ESF and can be launched. In these countries, we have indeed made a lot of progress in implementing the ESF as regards speed and quality. Despite the crisis, this has been possible.
Nevertheless, I would urge a certain amount of caution. This reallocation of the funds is possible and makes a difference. We can reallocate to more efficient and more effective projects, but this is not a magic solution. It is also important to know that a certain merit and benefit of the Structural Funds is that there is long-term planning with this fund and that the Member States and the regions can rely on these programmes. I am also aware of programmes and new initiatives in other countries. In reply to Mr Alves, from Portugal, I recently received two state secretaries and if you contact my Chef de Cabinet, we can give you much more concrete information about our engagement with Portugal.
However, let me come to a third issue which was also the subject of heated debate. This is the employment potential of SMEs or companies in general. In my view, so-called red tape is not the main issue. It is probably a negligible issue if it is an issue at all. The main issue is access to credit. The problem is that the banking system and the financial sector in general has been paralysed and does not properly finance SMEs and sometimes other companies either. That is why we have to do a lot more about banking regulation to ensure that the banks can revive themselves and then they will be able to support the real economy. That is why the microfinance initiative – for which we also thank the Parliament – is so important because it can make a difference in a sector where the standard mainstream financial sector is incapable of supporting micro and small enterprises, especially in disadvantaged and marginalised communities.
I would like to see a discussion which is focused on the real obstacles, as well as cooperation to eliminate these real obstacles, rather than shadow boxing. I would like to make one more point on more general terms. I very much agree with those who frame the discussion in the context of the general discussion on employment and growth in the European Union today. I think this is extremely important. Why? Because in the countries of the EU where youth unemployment is excessively high – terribly high, particularly in Spain and Greece – there is not just one problem. We discussed many: education and training; school to work policies, or the lack thereof; segmentation of the labour market, which labour market reforms inside the Member States will help to sort out. That is why the reform in Italy is so important, because it will also help the young people. I hope that this reform will be concluded successfully very soon.
But it is also very important to notice that we are speaking about a gap between the financially stable countries of the EU and the peripheries, which are under constant financial stress. If you look at the list of the eight countries, we are talking about the so-called periphery of the European Union. The big problem is that, until now, there has been no macro-economic policy in the European Union able to establish cohesion and bridge the gap between the core and the peripheries. These policies, which block the growth potential of the peripheries and keep them in a permanent recession, do not originate from the Commission. These policies – to be very frank with you, Mr Becker – originate from Berlin. Mr Becker, Mr Mann, Ms Steinruck, Mr Händel, you are MEPs, but you also have a right to speak in your national parliaments. Please help the
and the Chancellor to understand the economics of the European Union and help them in making the right decision."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples