Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-11-21-Speech-3-015-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20121121.4.3-015-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commission President, President-in-Office of the Council, here in the European Union, we are dealing with a banking crisis. Unfortunately, we are also dealing with a sovereign debt crisis, a political crisis, an institutional crisis, and, increasingly, a crisis in the public’s acceptance of the European Union as well.
Why is the next common budget for 2014-2020 so crucial for the future of Europe’s citizens? The answer is this: because it must express something that hopefully still exists, namely the shared European will to build a better future; in other words, a European commitment or a
.
From my perspective, David Cameron has simply got it wrong. His logic is that the United Kingdom must make savings, so Europe must do so too, and to the same extent. However, this shows a complete failure to understand that there must be joint investment if we want to invest sustainably in the coming years and genuinely invest in the future. China, India and Brazil will not stand and wait. We have to act together if we genuinely want to assert our citizens’ interests. It is also a false argument, because the fact is that during the period from 2007 to 2013, the European budget grew by just 1.95 %, compared with much larger increases in all the national budgets. This is disproportionate if we genuinely want to press ahead with resolute European policies.
Let me reiterate a point made by previous speakers. We are not acting out of egotistical institutional self-interest. This is not about more money for its own sake. It is about securing the additional funding that we need to offer our citizens a better future. It is about generating new competitiveness in the European Union, and ensuring that there is no repetition of the mistakes made in the past, with the bubbles in Spain and elsewhere. It is about genuine and sustainable growth. It is about research and development. It is about sustainable, future-oriented investment. It is about combating youth unemployment, supporting the transformation of our energy systems, promoting technologies and products that reduce our carbon footprint, supporting organic farming, refurbishing the existing building stock, developing the literacy skills of many people in Europe, and investing in our creative industries, which often create more jobs than other sectors. It is about education, education, education, so it is about Erasmus, but it is also about the European film industry, for example. I mention this because we have the award of the LUX Prize later.
When Chancellor Merkel spoke to us two weeks ago, she made the following error in my view. She said that 27 Member States had agreed, jointly, to invest 3 % in research and development. This same lady is the leader of a coalition of net contributors in the Council, and their proposals to the Cyprus Presidency include a full 12 % reduction in R&D. This is political schizophrenia! This is not coherence; it is blindness towards the future. The European Parliament rejects this policy and these proposals from Cyprus and Chancellor Merkel, and does so by a large majority!
We must show that we are resolute in our commitment to shared investment. Of course, we need to answer the question of where the funds should come from, if not from contributions based on GDP, which, as Mr Verhofstadt has reiterated, is no longer a viable model. It causes major conflicts and results in an approach to negotiations which, in essence, aims to push everything down to the lowest level. That is why the introduction of the financial transaction tax and other new sources of own resources is crucially important. It will give us more political autonomy, more shared interests, and is also a justice issue. The banks must contribute to covering the costs of the crisis. We cannot simply carry on pumping money into the banks. They must take on a share of social responsibility and contribute to the European budget. That is why Commissioner Lewandoski’s proposal, his model for the financial transaction tax – with two-thirds going to the European budget, and one-third to the national budgets – is a very good model and creates positive incentives.
Yes, we must combat tax avoidance because Europe’s citizens rightly regard it as extremely unfair if those who are unwilling to pay, including the wealthy in Greece, are not pursued and made to pay their share. That is something that we should no longer accept. This is a social justice issue and we need to take action here.
My final comment is this. We are only willing to support a genuine agreement if the level of funding is truly in line with what is needed to perform our future agenda, and if there is more flexibility within the budget, as well as genuine own resources. If the Council does not show substantial movement here, we are prepared to say no, and we will do so – let me say it again – not out of egotistical self-interest but in the interests of Europe’s citizens!"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"volonté générale européenne"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples