Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 13 March 2012 - Strasbourg

6. Conclusions of the European Council meeting (1-2 March 2012) (debate)

  President. – The next item is the Council and Commission statements on the conclusions of the European Council meeting (1 and 2 March 2012).

  Herman Van Rompuy, President of the European Council. – Mr President, honourable Members, the meeting of the European Council on 1 and 2 March was positive and not overshadowed by an immediate crisis. But, there can be no complacency in facing the enormous economic challenges that still remain before us. Sustained effort on several fronts remains necessary. One front is fiscal consolidation. Another is the growth and employment agenda. Some claim that these two are contradictory. It is our job to make sure that they are not.

Since the 1930s, the main response to an economic downturn has been a fiscal stimulus: deliberate deficit spending by governments to boost demand. Indeed, in 2008, a coordinated fiscal stimulus was agreed, which undoubtedly helped in the short term. However, the ability to use this instrument is limited in most Member States, because of their already excessive debt levels. What had been a solution became a problem.

The reasons behind the debt problem are diverse. In most cases, it is not because of gross profligacy in public spending. In some, it is because of large banking sectors, insufficiently supervised, which collapsed and had to be rescued by the taxpayer. In some others, economic growth, fuelled by asset bubbles, artificially boosted budget revenues which quickly collapsed, with the crisis increasing budget deficits and debt.

But for several, it is because debt levels have accumulated gradually over time, leaving most Member States with debts well over the agreed maximum of 60% of GDP. They applied Keynesianism asymmetrically: deficits during a slowdown were rarely eliminated during peaks – let alone replaced by surpluses. They were left with no safety margin when the crisis hit.

That is why the rules agreed in the new Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance, which was signed on the occasion of this European Council, are so important. They do not prevent countercyclical deficits as long as the structural deficit over the economic cycle is balanced, or at least remains very small, nor do they limit public expenditure: they simply provide that this must not be financed by excessive borrowing.

The European Council stated that all Member States should continue to respect their commitments under the Stability and Growth Pact, which has been strongly reinforced by the ‘six-pack’. But at the same time, the focus on consolidation, especially in the short term, must go hand in hand with further efforts to secure economic growth and improve employment prospects.

How to do this was the focus of both the European Council, in the context of the European Semester, and, as I reported to you already, the one in January. We approached the question from many angles. Making sure that, at the same time as we bring budgets under control, we keep investing in our future, in education, in research and development, in innovation. Stimulating investment. Looking closely at expenditure. Making assistance to the unemployed more pro-active. Looking at revenues, for instance, by tackling tax evasion and tax fraud. Exploiting to the full the single market, especially the services and digital markets, as emphasised again in a letter by 12 colleagues. Reducing the tax burden on labour, especially on low-income earners. Increasing trade. Opening sheltered sectors, such as professional services and retail. Improving the business environment, cutting red tape and paperwork thanks to digital public administration. In short, making the right choices for jobs and growth in the midst of fiscal consolidation.

All this will be monitored by the institutions. As you know, the Semester is our annual policy coordination tool, running from the release of the Commission’s annual growth survey to the June European Council, which will adopt country-specific recommendations, a key moment in the Semester.

Of course, some of the supply-side measures take time to have an effect, whereas fiscal consolidation has a more immediate dampening effect on demand. But we may be able to avoid an overall contraction in credit and I hope the banks will take advantage of the ample liquidity support provided by the European Central Bank to pass on some of these resources to businesses and households. The action taken by governments and the ECB is also helping to stabilise sovereign debt markets in the countries under pressure. It is crucial for countries also not to relent in their efforts and to stick to their commitments under the Stability and Growth Pact and the new Fiscal Stability Treaty.

Alongside this monetary policy, the overall policy of restoring confidence in the euro area at different levels will contribute to restored confidence by consumers and investors and will, in that way, contribute to growth and jobs.

Our strategy is starting to work. We have reached a turning point in the crisis while being fully aware of the remaining vulnerabilities. We need a short- and a longer-term strategy for growth. The latter is embodied in the Europe 2020 strategy, now also closely monitored in the Semester, but we also need a specific employment policy, especially for young people. Even if the main responsibility lies with the Member States, the Union can give guidance, as we have done in the European Council conclusions. We look forward to the Commission’s forthcoming ‘employment package’ to take this work further.

We also talked about the situation in Greece and we welcomed the progress made on the new Greek programme. The aim is to put the Greek economy back on a sustainable footing, both in terms of debt sustainability and competitiveness. Euro area leaders support the efforts undertaken by Greece. And may I just underline, for those who claim that the European Union is ‘imposing’ austerity on Greece, that, in fact, euro area countries and the IMF are providing another EUR 130 billion, on top of the first package of EUR 110 billion, of long-term low-interest loans to Greece, and helped it to secure a write-down of 70% of the net present value of its debts to private banks. Overall support to Greece represents more than 100% of its GDP. Without all this, Greece’s situation, difficult as it is, would be far, far worse.

But we also need a strong growth agenda for Greece mobilising European funds, foreign investments and maximising the growth potential of the Greek economy. The Commission was asked to step up its technical assistance to Greece to achieve this.

Euro area leaders also confirmed their commitment to reassess the adequacy of the overall ceiling of the EFSF/ESM firewall by the end of the month, via the Euro Group. In addition, they agreed to accelerate the payments of the paid-in capital for the ESM.

During this European Council, we had a wide range of other issues to discuss also. On Serbia: we agreed to grant it the status of EU candidate. This is a remarkable achievement – a result of the efforts demonstrated by both sides in the dialogue between Belgrade and Priština. I hope it will encourage Serbia to undertake further efforts in order to meet the political and economic criteria for EU membership and to continue to support regional cooperation and good neighbourly relations in the Western Balkans. We expect further normalisation of relations between Belgrade and Priština.

On the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the Schengen Area: we have asked the JHA Council to adopt its decision in September and, in the meantime, to identify and implement safeguarding measures aimed at contributing to the success of the process.

On Syria: facing an appalling situation, we focused on three key aspects of this crisis. On the humanitarian side, we called for an immediate end to the violence against civilians and human rights abuses, making it clear that those responsible for atrocities will be held accountable. We also called for humanitarian agencies to have unhindered access – the EU has already mobilised humanitarian funding.

On the political side, we confirmed the EU’s commitment to further increase the pressure on the Syrian regime, and invited the Council to prepare further targeted restrictive measures. We called on President Assad to step aside. As soon as a democratic transition begins, we are ready to develop a new partnership and provide assistance.

On the diplomatic front, we supported the efforts by the Arab League, the mission undertaken by Kofi Annan and the launching of the Group of the Friends of the Syrian People. We also called on all members of the UN Security Council, particularly Russia and China, to work together in an effort to stop the violence. Let us not forget that we cannot act decisively without a UN mandate.

This view was unanimously supported. Evidence, I remind you, that there is more common foreign policy than some think. We have a common position on Iran, on Syria, on Libya, on the Southern Neighbourhood and so on. In other words, in the world’s most dangerous region, the 27 are working hand in hand. This is a fact often overlooked.

Finally, I was honoured that all 27 Heads of State or Government of the European Council decided to ask me to continue as their President for another two-and-a-half years. Furthermore, 17 of them, from the euro area countries, also asked me to chair the euro summit meetings.

Looking forward, it will not come as a surprise that my first priority will remain the economy. It is our lifeline. We need a strong economic base to preserve our social models, to achieve high levels of employment, including for the younger generation, and it is the only way to play a role on the world stage equal to our potential. It is a privilege to continue the work in this decisive moment for Europe.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission. – Mr President, President of the European Council, distinguished Members of Parliament. First, while I have already congratulated President Van Rompuy on his reappointment, I would like in this Chamber to reiterate my thanks and appreciation for the work that he has carried out over the last two-and-a-half years. I look forward to continuing to work with him to build a stronger European Union – stronger in defence of the interests of our citizens and also stronger in the world.

The President of the European Council has already outlined the main outcomes of this summit, including the important discussions we had on external relations issues – namely, the situation in Syria and relations with Iran and, of course, the very important decision to grant candidate status to Serbia.

On my side, I would like to highlight a few elements that demonstrate that the European Union may be turning the corner towards renewed stability and growth. Let us be clear; there is now less tension regarding the euro area, but we are not yet out of the crisis. The situation remains fragile and we have to complete our work, including the reinforcement of the firewalls. These are an indispensable counterpart of our reinforced economic governance.

As I have said before in this Parliament, I expect Heads of State or Government to focus not just on short-term crisis management, but also on growth: smart, sustainable, inclusive growth, which is the key to job creation and the future prosperity of Europe. This was, and remains, the first objective of the Europe 2020 strategy and is at the centre of the comprehensive approach behind the Road map to Stability and Growth which I presented in this Parliament last October. This approach is now gaining support and this European Council was a step in the right direction, although a lot remains to be done.

At this summit, progress was achieved concerning key elements of this comprehensive approach: first, an agreement for a response to the problems in Greece; secondly, financial stability; and thirdly, job-creating growth through our Europe 2020 agenda, namely, through concrete initiatives frontloading targeted investment.

Let me start with Greece. Some people continue to say that Greece will not make it. I ask why? Why should Greece not be able to carry out the necessary reforms for its competitiveness? I believe it is possible. The Greek Government and the Greek Parliament believe it is possible. The decision on PSI shows that it can be possible.

The priority now is to make the second programme work. This is our collective task, supporting the Greek authorities and the Greek people. To that end, the Commission is already taking concrete steps. Together with those Commissioners most closely involved, I have had very concrete talks with Prime Minister Papademos and his team about getting key growth-enhancing decisions taken immediately.

As you will have seen from my letter, we have agreed to concentrate on a number of key priorities: improving youth employment, promoting a more business-friendly environment, providing liquidity to SMEs and sweeping away barriers to the absorption of structural funds. These are all areas where we can make real progress in weeks, not months or years.

The Commission Task Force under Horst Reichenbach is currently on the ground discussing how to put these measures into practice with the Greek Government. Finally, just yesterday, I held a meeting with President Hoyer of the European Investment Bank to examine how our support for Greece can be made more effective.

To cement this approach, I intend, in the coming weeks, to present, together with Vice-President Rehn, a communication on growth and jobs for Greece, taking stock of the progress that has been made and setting out the top priorities for the future.

As I set out in the Road map to Stability and Growth, finding a lasting solution to the problems in Greece is an essential prerequisite for stability. Without stability, there is no confidence, and without confidence, we will not get growth and jobs.

The signature of the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Growth was a further sign of the commitment to discipline and convergence. This, as you know, was not the Commission’s preferred mechanism due to its intergovernmental nature. However, its signature – not only by euro area countries, but by 25 out of the current 27 Member States – is a political statement that the euro is not just the currency of some countries but of the European Union. It is a strong political message about the irreversibility of the euro, and it was very well received by investors in Europe and outside Europe.

It is the very culture of financial stability that is a condition for a true economic union. Together with the ‘six-pack’ and the European Stability Mechanism, it is an important step in this process. It is therefore vital that all its appropriate provisions can be brought into line with European Union law as soon as possible. The contracting Member States have agreed to integrate the provisions of the Treaty into European Union law within five years. Already, the Commission has proposed further amendments to the ‘two-pack’ to make sure that important provisions of the fiscal compact are implemented under Community law: that means also with the active participation of this Parliament.

Naturally, this agreement could not – and perhaps it should not – cover all the elements of an economic union and its most pressing objectives like the internal market or economic, social and territorial cohesion. These objectives are indeed better pursued, from a Community perspective, in the framework of the existing treaties, and through the European institutions and the Community method.

Implementing the Europe 2020 agenda for growth and jobs dominated our agenda at the European Council. Financial stability is indispensable but it is not sufficient. As we said several times, we need financial stability and economic growth: the one and the other.

As the road map made clear, there are a number of elements towards growth that must be implemented at the same time. These include, among others, structural reforms, deepening of the single market, targeted investment – yes, we need investment – and boosting trade with foreign markets.

On these points, I made clear to the European Council that Member States must do more to close the implementation gap between political will and decisions taken on the ground. I made it clear that it was not sufficient to talk about Europe 2020 only in Brussels in the Justus Lipsius Building, but that we need to own this strategy at all levels, including the social partners, the regions, and our societies. I also made clear that we need a perspective of social inclusion because there are some situations of social emergency, and indeed rising poverty, in many of our Member States.

I made a point that structural reform must be politically, but also socially acceptable to our citizens. Social dialogue is vital in this respect; that is why I place such importance on the tripartite social summit at European level, and social dialogue between employers and unions at national level. This is one element in demonstrating that the path we are taking is a fair one, where the burden and the benefits are both shared.

Fairness was a key motivation behind the Commission’s proposal for a financial transaction tax last year. More broadly, the last three European Councils have highlighted taxation as a fundamental component in our recovery efforts. This should not be a surprise. Recent figures indicate that as much as EUR 1 trillion is lost every year in the European Union through tax evasion and avoidance. Compare this EUR 1 trillion to what is needed to consolidate national budgets, and you can imagine that many problems could be solved.

A strong, unified stance is the only way forward to tackle the issue. The Commission is working on concrete measures to toughen our stance against tax evasion and fraud but Member States have an important duty to fulfil at European level too. There is no reason for any further delay on adopting the revised Savings Directive and the negotiating mandates for tax agreements with third countries. This is blocked, as you know, at Council level. This is another negative example of the implementation gap I mentioned earlier: positions that are taken at the European Council but are not afterwards followed up by the Council or by the Member States.

I have said that the programme for achieving growth is Europe 2020 and the instrument to achieve it is the multiannual financial framework. The European budget is a budget for investment; I hope that it will be in this perspective that we will have constructive discussions with the Member States about it, and I am pleased to see that the European Parliament has taken that position. I am also pleased that Commission proposals on project bonds for infrastructure development and the roll-out of broadband were accepted at this European Council. Together with other priority actions, such as accelerating some initiatives under the Annual Growth Survey and completing the single market, these measures will create jobs in the short term and make the European economy more competitive in the longer term.

Our citizens want to see real action that will make a difference to their daily lives. Since the informal European Council at the end of January, the Commission has been taking this action with regard to slashing youth unemployment and providing support to SMEs. SMEs are the answer to the need to create more jobs in Europe. Commission teams have visited eight Member States since then. In almost every case, in close cooperation with the national administrations, they found ways of helping to get more young people into work.

Let me close by reiterating that we have now come a long way in creating more stable conditions which will enable us to do the bulk of the work still before us. What we need is not constant drama about the euro, but hard work and determination in our action to sustain the European social market economy. No, the European social model is not dead. But in a more challenging environment, we need a more competitive Europe that delivers stability and growth through responsibility and solidarity.

  Joseph Daul, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Mr Van Rompuy, first of all, I would like to congratulate you, Mr Van Rompuy, on your appointment, and I wish you a great deal of courage for the next two and a half years, since we all need good proposals to create jobs in Europe.

I think there are two lessons to be learnt from the crisis. The first is putting national and regional finances back on track, and it can wait no longer. The signing of the fiscal treaty, with 25 members, two days ago, shows that this lesson has been learnt by the most far-sighted countries of the EU. The treaty imposes an obligation on its signatories to show good faith, honesty and discipline. However, everyone knows that actually applying a provision is more important than signing it. This is where we are waiting for the Member States, and for the Commission, as Guardian of the Treaties. Everyone remembers how the Stability Pact was infringed by the largest Member States. Everyone remembers that a certain President of the Commission even called it ‘stupid’. I therefore welcome the fiscal treaty which is, with the ‘six-pack’ and, soon, the ‘two-pack’ as well, a useful instrument. However, I would like to call for vigilance regarding how they are actually applied.

The second lesson to learn from the crisis is the emphasis to be placed on a return to sustainable growth and growth that creates jobs. I must say that, in this area, there has been no real progress since the start of the crisis. The Council meeting in January merely contented itself with making recommendations to the Member States, without any coordination or overall plan. As for the Commission, it is working extremely hard, but the many initiatives it is undertaking would be better understood and more effective if they formed part of an overall project, particularly a project for growth and employment. Above all, I am struck by the difficulty and also the slowness with which too many Member States are applying the rules to which they have, nonetheless, made a commitment. On this point, I also expect the Commission to be more vigilant in its efforts to put Member States back on the right path. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) is proposing two courses of action, which it will place on an official basis in a public letter to the Council and the Commission.

The first area concerns the internal market. At the end of this year, we will celebrate the 20th anniversary of the single market. However, 20 years on, there are still more than 150 bottlenecks hampering the operation of that market. It is for this reason that I am calling not only for us to ensure that the rules that have been adopted are actually applied, but also for a legislative package to be put forward, together with a precise timetable to enable us to complete the internal market. This is an urgent matter and within in it we can find, as I say every day, at least a small percentage of growth for all the countries, which is very important at this difficult time. The services sector, which is vital for Europe’s economy, constitutes in itself one of the largest blockages. Prices vary within the European Union; they can be up to twice as high for medicines, three times as high for medical treatments, four times as high for certain kinds of insurance and 100 times as high for the same university qualifications. When we know this, it is clear that action can wait no longer. Of course, we cannot do everything at once. It is for this reason that I call upon the Commission to start with a new legislative initiative in 10 sectors of the internal market.

The second course of action recommended by the PPE Group concerns the investments needed for growth. I am also proposing, on this point, that in the European budgets for the next few years, a share allocated to investments generating growth and jobs should be protected. Let me be clear: it is not a question of new expenditure or additional budgets, but of channelling funds that are already available towards sustainable investment. Finally, we must provide ourselves with our own resources. It is not widely enough known that one euro invested by the EU can produce, through its multiplier effect, up to EUR 5 in investment. To take the example of energy, in 2010, the EUR 4 billion injected into the sector ended up generating EUR 22 billion in investment.

I will finish with this: our fellow citizens, particularly young people, need jobs now. Our economy needs small growth to begin with and guaranteed growth for the future. The budget pact will ensure healthy and honest finances. Mr Barroso, I believe that on this point, you are right. We must combat tax evasion more rigorously. You have quoted the figures, and it is an enormous problem. We must act to create jobs, while the completion of the single market and the protection of the investment budget ought to generate sustainable growth and jobs.

  Hannes Swoboda, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, firstly, I would like to congratulate Mr Van Rompuy on his re-election. There are a lot of discussions ahead of us and some controversial issues to be dealt with. We still have a great deal to do. Secondly, I would like to congratulate the Council on its decision regarding Serbia. I believe that it is the right option for Serbia, for the region and also for Kosovo. Unfortunately, no positive decisions were made about Schengen, in particular, with regard to Bulgaria and Romania. The people of these countries deserve to have the Schengen Area enlarged. I hope that this will happen soon.

However, what shocked me was the statement by Mr Sarkozy after the Council meeting in which he said that Schengen should possibly be suspended. Will we have to bring our passports again when we come to Strasbourg? Are the many absent members of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) already looking for their passports ready for their next trip to Strasbourg? This surely cannot be meant seriously.

(Applause)

Now, Mr Sarkozy’s spokesperson is saying that the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament is preventing the reform of Schengen. This is not true. We are not preventing reform; we simply do not want to take a step backwards. We need to move forwards in Europe and not back. Therefore, I am calling on Mr Sarkozy, in the light of his possible election defeat, not to dig out all the old nationalist and anti-European relics. Let us remain realistic and continue focusing on the future. Let us commit to Europe. That would be a good thing for Mr Sarkozy to do.

(Applause)

I would now like to turn to economic issues. I read the following sentences in an interview in a German magazine. ‘How do you intend to maintain your system of supply and demand if you do not care about the people who are supposed to be buying the products? We need a system which gives those on low incomes a share in the profits of global financial speculation. A system is only ever as strong as the poor people who form part of it’.

This was said not by an economist or a politician, but by the human rights campaigner and singer, Harry Belafonte. Unfortunately, there are many politicians in Europe who do not have Mr Belafonte’s economic common sense. I think this is very sad and I believe that it is something which we need to change in Europe.

(Applause)

The system will not work without support for demand and support for the weaker members of society. However, in some cases, we are doing the opposite; for example, in Greece and also in Spain. We are achieving the opposite of what we want to achieve. We are creating less growth and employment rather than more. We are also reducing taxes and public revenues rather than increasing them. However, the fact that we have responded so late to the problem of youth unemployment is a particularly serious matter. Mr Van Rompuy, you are right that the Council has reacted, but we have seen huge increases in youth unemployment since 2008.

What are we to say to the young people who cannot find work? It is appalling that young people from Europe are being forced to emigrate to Argentina, Angola and Brazil in order to get a job. It is appalling that many young people have to work for what almost amounts to starvation wages. What are we to say to this generazione mille euro as they are called in Italy? In fact, they are the generazione con meno di mille euro because many of them earn less than EUR 1 000 per month. What are we to say to these young people? How can we win them over to the cause of Europe? Therefore, on behalf of my group, I am calling for a job and training guarantee. Mr Van Rompuy, you were right when you said to me that this is the responsibility of the Member States. However, the budgets are also the responsibility of the Member States and that does not stop Europe getting involved in them. My group and I would like to see Europe getting involved with young people and giving them the possibility of a job or of training.

(Applause)

That is part of the European social model. I would like to make one thing quite clear and my remarks are also aimed at Mr Draghi, the President of the European Central Bank, although what he said may simply have been misunderstood: the European social model is not dead. The European social model must not be allowed to die. We Social Democrats are in favour of its continued survival. We need to reform it, but the European social model is part of our identity and we will defend this identity to the hilt.

Finally, many people believe that the people of Europe are opposed to reform. There is only opposition to reform because the people can see that the policies which are being pursued are not fair. Mr Barroso rightly quoted from our study, for example, concerning the question of tax evasion. It is clear that our tax system is often unfair and that it is the rich people who pay no taxes. These are things which we need to change. I am very pleased about what Mr Barroso and Mr Van Rompuy said. We have made some progress, but not enough. I am sure that if the people of Europe understood that we will be pursuing more socially just policies in future, they would be prepared to support the necessary reforms. However, what they do not want is for us to give up the European social model which we are so proud of. We Social Democrats support this model and we will defend it with all our strength.

(Applause)

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE), Blue-card question. – (FR) Mr Swoboda, you brandished your passport and talked of Nicolas Sarkozy. Do you know that Nicolas Sarkozy has always argued in favour of the Schengen agreements? Do you know that Nicolas Sarkozy does not want to get rid of Schengen, but, instead, to strengthen it? Do you know how the border between Greece and Turkey operates? Do you know that in truth, freedom cannot be exercised without security? Mr Swoboda, I have a question to put to you: do you believe that the Schengen provisions are properly managed – yes or no?

  Hannes Swoboda (S&D), Blue-card answer. – (DE) Mr President, firstly, Mr Audy, I always think of Mr Sarkozy when I pull out my passport. I will think of him particularly when he has retired and can no longer pursue the policy that he is currently pursuing.

Secondly, Mr Audy, it is true that security and Schengen go hand in hand. However, I would like to ask you why the Council – and the French Government is not entirely innocent in this respect – is continuing to prevent Bulgaria and Romania from joining the Schengen Area, despite the fact that they have fulfilled all the conditions? I would very much like to ask you this, because now there is security in these countries as a result of the measures that have been taken. Our failure to enlarge the Schengen Area is actually against the law. I am very much in favour of it, but calling it into question in an election campaign, as Mr Sarkozy has done, is reprehensible in my view. Schengen is one of Europe’s major achievements. An achievement of this kind should not be called into question. Instead, it should be supported because it means that we Europeans are able to cross national borders freely without passports. That is what I am standing up for in Europe. If Mr Sarkozy does not do this, then that is his problem, but I and, above all, François Hollande and the French Socialists are standing up for this. For security and freedom!

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FR) Mr President, I did not intend to get involved in this debate but, Mr Audy, we need to take a serious approach. When I hear it said that half of immigrants should leave France, as President Sarkozy has said, and when I see him attacking halal meat and, at the same time, attacking other partners in relation to Schengen, I wonder who is really the extreme right candidate. Is it Ms Le Pen or Mr Sarkozy?

(Protests)

I really do wonder. When I see the way this election campaign is going, I tell myself that we have never seen this sort of thing in any other country.

The problem at the moment is that there is a French President in office using this sort of language.

So let me return to the debate we were having before Mr Audy intervened. First of all, I would like to congratulate President Van Rompuy. European Councils come and go and I feel that I note a terrible complacency. Do we really believe, as was said, that we have reached a turning point in the crisis? Do we really believe that the efforts of Mr Monti and Mr Rajoy will suffice to put an end to the crisis, that the fiscal compact will put an end to the mess, and that it is sufficient to merge the two rescue funds with EUR 750 billion? Do you really think that will end the crisis?

I think that what is happening for the moment is completely different. What is happening for the moment is that we are seeing a calming down of the bond markets because Mr Draghi has bought us time. He has printed EUR 1 trillion worth of new money. That is what Mr Draghi has done and that is what we are feeling today: the effect of printing new money – EUR 1 trillion.

I do not think that that is a real structural solution to this crisis. It could work for a few months or a few weeks, but it will not be a structural solution to this crisis. In fact, we all know what the structural solution for this crisis is. We all know that we need a partial mutualisation of the debt. I was at the US Treasury in Washington and they said that we should do this – create our redemption fund, a structural solution for it. The same thing at the International Monetary Fund. I think that everywhere, they can see the light. It is only in Europe that we do not see the light. We know what it is. It is to mutualise debt above 60% so that everybody pays lower interest rates, including Germany. This is in compliance with the constitutional law in Germany, it is compliant with the international and European treaties, and it is a fund of EUR 2.3 trillion. That is the real firewall.

You talk all the time about a firewall, but there is no firewall even if you merge the two rescue funds. That is a fire extinguisher, not a firewall. It is there if you need it when there is a problem – a crisis in Greece, in Portugal, in Ireland – but not a real firewall around the big economies like Spain and Italy. For that, you need a real redemption fund. And I can assure Mr Van Rompuy and Mr Barroso that I think there is a clear majority on this in this Parliament: we shall not adopt any new legislation related to the euro crisis unless it contains such a proposal.

Finally, a few words on Syria. Yesterday, 47 bodies were found in Homs – the bodies of women and children, stabbed, burned, tortured – and Kofi Annan reports that they do not seem to really understand the reality in Damascus. I think the time is now right to do something. Let us stop all flights to Syria. Let us send back all Syrian ambassadors. Let us prevent all Assad’s friends from travelling and let us do what President Obama is doing, namely, looking into all options – humanitarian corridors, safe havens, assistance to the Free Syrian Army, be it technical or otherwise. But we have to do something and not what we are doing for the moment, which is nothing at all in this case. Otherwise, there is only one outcome – that is that Syria will become a new Srebrenica, a new Sudan, a new Rwanda – and we shall be complicit in that.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Joseph Daul (PPE), Blue-card question. – (FR) Mr President, I would simply like to know what the reaction of my friend Guy Verhofstadt is, since Mr Sarkozy does not have a representative of the Front national in his government. We have a problem regarding the Netherlands, where the government has never condemned anything. That is much more dangerous and much more insidious.

The second thing I would like to ask him is this: when Neelie Kroes says that Greece must leave the euro, I have never heard Mr Verhofstadt criticise the suggestion. Please answer these questions.

  Guy Verhofstadt (ALDE), Blue-card answer. – (FR) Mr President, I think I was the first person to denounce the Dutch Government’s silence on the issue of the website. I must remind my dear friend, Mr Daul, however, that it is a government of Christian Democrats together with Liberals. Perhaps he has forgotten that fact. In any case, I have telephoned Mr Rutte; I do not know whether Mr Daul has telephoned Mr Verhagen.

I must say that this afternoon, I am going to be very clear. I am going to support a joint resolution on the website because the Dutch Government’s silence is totally unacceptable. However, I prefer this silence on the part of the Dutch Government to the noise currently being made by Mr Sarkozy about the xenophobic, racist affair.

  Daniel Cohn-Bendit, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Mr Van Rompuy, ladies and gentlemen, I do not know whether I should congratulate you, Mr Van Rompuy, or whether we should congratulate ourselves: we shall see. I hope that your second term of office will not be like the first.

I would like to say various things.

Firstly, to come back to Schengen, I should like a very simple thing to be said. Germany and France are isolated in the Council. At the Council, all the countries have refused to renationalise the management of Schengen. That is what this is about: saying that reform is necessary. Mr Audy, if you wish, for Greece, if one were to stop provoking the Turks with totally idiotic resolutions in the national parliaments, it might be possible to conclude an agreement with them for them to secure the borders. We hit out at them, and then we say to them: ‘be nice to us’. They are just as clever or stupid as we are! Let us put our own house in order, and perhaps we will be able to secure the border with Greece by having better relations with Turkey.

This is not nonsense, it is the truth, my dear friend, and you are going to hear some more of it.

I would like to turn now to the crisis. I believe that this approach to the golden rule, where we adopt a triple financial, social and environmental golden rule, makes sense. I am not opposed to a financial golden rule, but if we do not adopt a social and an environmental golden rule alongside it, we will not be doing right by future generations. That is what I wanted to say about the golden rule.

Starting from there, what we need to do now is to produce a recovery plan, but not on a shoestring. As you know, we have staked EUR 4 600 billion in order to save the banks. This was made up of guarantees, investments and various ways of saving the financial system. The Marshall Plan was 5% of US GDP; 5% of European GDP is EUR 800 billion, not EUR 4 000 billion. This is a recovery plan for the European economy, including the economies of Greece, Portugal, Spain, etc. Let us be equal to the challenge. We will not overcome the crisis merely through austerity policies that strangle the people; we will only do so if we give the people prospects for the future. We have had to pull out all the stops to save the financial system. Are we not capable of pulling out all the stops to save European citizens? Anyway, that seems to me to go without saying. What I am calling for is that we should make use of a significant European budget – Mr Daul is right – using own resources and the European Investment Bank, in order to implement a lasting and sustainable economic recovery with the green economy.

With regard to tax evasion, I should like to say that we must be honest. As long as we continue to have fiscal competition in Europe, we will not succeed. Allow me to cite an example: Facebook and Apple are in Ireland, and Google and Amazon are in Luxembourg, while they make their money in France, Germany, etc. These companies pay taxes in Luxembourg or in Ireland because there is unfair competition on company taxation. As long as we are unable to regulate this, let us not say that we are combating tax evasion. If you want to combat tax evasion, it is very simple. All you have to say is: ‘all banks who do business in Europe, whether they be European, Swiss or foreign, must declare what European residents deposit in their banks, all the banks, otherwise they will be prohibited from working in the European market’. That is what the Americans did with UBS in the case of US money in Switzerland and you have seen how the Swiss banks reacted, saying: ‘here are the declarations’. Do the same thing! Compel the banks to make declarations. Of course, that constitutes a temporary removal of banking secrecy. If you tackle this, then you can tackle tax evasion, because you know where it is and where it comes from. For as long as we fail to do this, we will not be equal to the challenge.

I should now like to finish with two issues. Regarding Bosnia and Belgrade, I am not in agreement. As long as we fail to give Bosnia a chance, those who were responsible for the war will be the major beneficiaries, and those who were the victims of the war – Bosnia – will not even have a makeshift role within Europe. I find this morally unjustifiable. I am not opposed to the agreement with Serbia but I would say we are not doing enough for Bosnia. While we fail to tackle Dayton, we will not make progress.

Finally, on the subject of Syria, Mr Verhofstadt is right. Today, we are imposing a humanitarian corridor, but we are not saying that we are doing anything. I agree that Syria is isolated, and there are all the options: arming the army, seeing if we should act to impose humanitarian corridors, etc. Mr Van Rompuy, you speak of a humanitarian corridor, but if Mr Assad does not want one, what will you do? Will you impose it or not? This is something we must consider. The Syrian people are being massacred every day, and our discussions are not keeping pace with the massacre. That is our problem. I am not saying that I have the solution, but at the moment, we are not able to be equal to the task.

  Martin Callanan, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, I am becoming increasingly concerned that a sort of corrupting complacency is starting to take hold in EU corridors of power. Many seem to now believe that the worst of the crisis is over. After all, we have signed the new treaty to solve it all, and some are implying that Europe is really OK; the only problem is that a few Mediterranean countries have a problem with their public finances and it is nothing that the new treaty cannot put right. Well, Europe is not OK. The underlying economic weakness is a problem shared by the whole of our continent and the new treaty is simply an irrelevance to most of it.

I am pleased to say that two Member States, both from parties led by my group, have been honest enough to say that there is no point in signing this treaty. Others have signed it and have indicated that they do not really believe that it applies to them. Before the ink was even dry on the treaty, Spain and the Netherlands said that they were not going to comply with its provisions.

The European Council has wasted considerable energy on a treaty that will make no practical difference to the fundamentals, whilst taking decisions at the same time that will condemn the Greek people to a generation of poverty. Greece now faces the prospect of one of the longest recessions in recorded history, a collapse in living standards and levels of unemployment unseen in Europe since the 1930s. The solution, of course, is not easy and it is not without cost, but a new course must surely now be followed. Measures are required so that Greece can organise an orderly default, but a default that needs to be complemented by leaving the euro so that devaluation can save its economy in the short term, while structural reforms are taken to rebuild it in the medium term.

But the complacency shown when it comes to the fundamental state of the EU economy is equally profoundly shocking. There was a letter, signed by 12 Heads of Government, from three political families in this House, which was presented to the Council. It was an opportunity to relaunch a constructive growth agenda in Europe, but the initial reaction was very cool, as you know, Mr Van Rompuy. Surely, the time has now come for you to stop behaving as if Council communiqués have been delegated to the foreign ministries of France and Germany. Why did you not immediately face the opportunity to focus on a positive forward-looking agenda for real economic growth? Perhaps, when you asked the Council to put jobs on the agenda, you were, in fact, only referring to yours – congratulations on your reappointment, by the way.

Mr Barroso, should this not be the kind of growth agenda that is the centre piece of the work of your Commission and should define its purpose? Is that not what we were promised? The global competitive challenge requires a determined policy response from the whole Commission, not just from one or two Commissioners who understand what is at stake. Perhaps the Commission should spend a little more time on pursing real reform and a little less time on producing silly, racist, martial arts videos.

I hope that you will also take this opportunity to condemn Sunday’s remarks from the President of France calling for restriction, calling for more protectionism on trade. We should be abolishing trade barriers, not erecting more of them. Apparently, last week, President Sarkozy also said that there are too many foreigners in France. Well, I am a foreigner in France and I say to him that I would be very happy not to have to come back to this Parliament in France every month – and it is his government that actually makes us come here in the first place. There are several hundred foreigners who would be very happy not to come back to France every month if that is really what President Sarkozy wants.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Paul Nuttall (EFD), Blue-card question. – Mr President, I must congratulate our colleague on coming round to the UKIP position. We have been saying for many years now that Greece would be better off leaving the euro and going back to the drachma. But this is not the position of his government and it is certainly not the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne. Does my colleague agree or disagree with the position of the British Government? Does he agree with the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that more fiscal union is needed and that Greece would be better off in the euro, or is his position completely different from that of his own government?

  Martin Callanan (ECR), Blue-card answer. – Firstly, of course, I am happy to say that I am not a spokesman for the British Government, but I think that George Osborne has made the position very clear. The matter of whether Greece stays within the euro is a matter for Greece itself to decide and I actually agree with that position.

I can have an opinion on whether it is wise for them to stay in the euro or not and I have expressed that opinion, but the actual fundamentals of it are for them themselves to decide, for elected politicians in Greece to make that decision. I believe in national democracy in these respects.

  Paul Murphy, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – Mr President, I have to say I marvel every time that Mr Barroso and Mr Van Rompuy can keep a straight face when they say that our strategy is starting to work and when they talk about job-creating growth. The strategy that they are pursuing, which is an onslaught on people’s living standards and an onslaught on society in Greece, has resulted in the highest level of unemployment across the EU since the introduction of the euro – 25 million people. It has resulted in a contraction of the eurozone at the end of 2011. They want to institutionalise synchronised austerity right across Europe with their fiscal treaty but, at the same time, they like to talk about growth.

It was Winston in George Orwell’s 1984 who said that freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two makes four. So let me say clearly that trying to meet the structural deficit targets under Article 3 and the debt reduction targets under Article 4 of this treaty equals savage austerity across Europe. It means 5.7 billion euros’ worth of extra cuts and taxes in Ireland; tens of billions of euros across the eurozone. It means, without economic growth, repayment to the bondholders of four and a half billion euros in principal repayments on top of the interest in Ireland; over a hundred billion across the eurozone. It does not mean growth; it means more unemployment; it means a worsening crisis; it means worsening public services and worsening working conditions. Because of this, in Ireland, the government’s only argument in this debate is based on fear. The centrepiece of their scaremongering is the clause which is inserted into the new ESM Treaty which says that only countries that sign up to this permanent austerity can access the ESM funds.

So, Mr Barroso and Mr Van Rompuy, can I ask you a direct question, for which I would like an answer? How did this blackmail clause come to be inserted into the new ESM Treaty? Who proposed this blackmail clause? Did the Irish Government raise any objection to the creation of a stick that is simply there to beat the Irish people with, to try and get us to vote for permanent austerity? Finally, is it not the case that the amendment to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to allow the ESM to come into being has still not been ratified by the Member States and therefore, if the Irish Government is serious about a fair and free debate without this threat hanging over our heads, it has the power to refuse to ratify and allow this ESM Treaty to come into being – unless the clause is removed?

  Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, I see that Mr Van Rompuy is back for another two-and-a-half years, no doubt a reward for his great success. Indeed, Mr Van Rompuy, listening to you, I thought perhaps I had got it all wrong. You talked about how positive the last Council meeting had been, that we have reached the turning point, that everything is going swimmingly, and I was beginning to believe it.

And then I realised that you did not mention the D word: Default. No, that cannot be talked about. We pretend there has not been a default when we know, in fact, that in Greece last week, there was a very major credit event. Indeed, listening to all of you this morning reminds me of the great British comedy classic Carry On Up the Khyber, where the colonial English go on having dinner, ignoring the fact that impending disaster is all around them.

You are determined but delusional in this attempt to keep the euro propped up. And whilst you are enjoying your dinner, incoming shells are landing all around you: youth unemployment in Greece went through 50% last week. That is fine, carry on, serve the main course. And you will have seen yesterday that 110 German bondholders of Greek bonds are now going to take legal action against the banks and against the Greek Government. But do not worry chaps; carry on; everything is going to be fine. But perhaps the biggest bombshell is the German Finance Minister saying just yesterday that nobody can exclude a third bail-out. Pass the port. Do enjoy the party.

It is a farcical situation, and why is it happening? That is what people in Europe want to know. Why is this happening? Is this being done to help Greece? No. It is going to crucify Greece. It is being done to prop up a failing project because you know that once Greece goes, others will go as well. And some of the language is telling. Mr Barroso, when leaders stand up and say that political moves are irreversible, history has one lesson: you are always, always, going to be proved to be wrong.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI). – (FR) Mr President, first, I would like to give Mr Swoboda some information about one thing. Since the Schengen agreements have been in existence, I have to present my passport, or at least one form of identification, not only at the borders but also during journeys within a country. When I return from Strasbourg to Lyon, I have to present my identification at check-in, and again on boarding. That is very strange: since the disappearance of checks at the external borders, there have been checks everywhere. That is the first point.

My second point, if I may say so, is for Mr Verhofstadt, that great democrat and former prime minister of a country which banned its main opposition force – the Vlaams Blok – and which now wants to block websites. He finds it very racist to refer to the fact that people in France are obliged to eat halal meat when they are not Muslims. However, that is not all, Mr Verhofstadt. I heard on the television this morning, for instance, that mosques were burning in Brussels, but we must certainly not talk about that either. Soon, you will ban the websites that report this. I salute your deep liberalism.

The European Council that we are considering today is not a last-chance one, which is a highly exceptional fact. We have sacrificed Greece, and for the moment, the markets have been appeased. We are told that it is a council of stability, coordination and governance. The stability in question is stability in the denial of democracy, since the people will not be asked to make a decision. The coordination in question is that of austerity plans and insecurity, while the governance is that strange mix of bureaucracy and plutocracy that orders people around and which, for some time now, has been claiming an increasing right to do so, with apparently increasing authoritarianism and ferocity.

  Herbert Reul (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Van Rompuy, Mr Barroso, the statement that we have not yet emerged from the crisis and still have a number of tasks to complete was correct. However, it is also true and is also worth mentioning that some of the work has been done and that we are on the right track. Part of the process of solving major problems is to keep your spirits up and to ask yourself, when you have made some progress, whether this is the right way forward or the wrong one. I believe that debates of the kind we had initially, which were like election campaign events, do not help at all in encouraging young people to commit to the future and to Europe. They are not of any benefit and simply cause harm.

To go back to the subject of organising growth and stability, if we want to promote positive economic growth in Europe and to ensure that people in Europe and, in particular, young people have a future, then we need to use the funds available to us wisely and finally come to grips with the things that have often happened in the past. Spending our money with care is not about imposing extreme austerity measures, but about using money honestly and sensibly. That is where we have made all our mistakes. More in some areas and fewer in others. We have not done a good enough job of ensuring that things did not get out of hand. If we want to make progress and stimulate growth, that does not mean throwing more money around, organising a few more programmes and writing a few more road maps, which no one understands anyway, but it means putting structures in place and creating incentives. Some Member States and some national economies are flourishing. Why is this? Because they have implemented structural reforms, invested in industry and had the courage not to regulate everything down to the smallest detail. If we were all to get together and think about whether the agreements or new regulations that we are introducing were absolutely necessary, and if we were to consider more carefully where innovations and research could be promoted, we would probably do more for growth in Europe than we do with the many speeches that we make here. We need courage, commitment and trust in people, and in young people in particular. This is why I think we need fewer regulations and more innovation and research. We also need fewer words and more real policies when we make decisions here every day. That is what I would like to see happening.

  Robert Goebbels (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, the most important reform to implement is to reduce the number of summits of Heads of State or Government. They are practically useless. If the euro is doing better, it is because of the action taken by the European Central Bank and Mario Draghi. In fact, the announcement of summits gives rise to futile hopes. That was the case of the most recent summit, which produced a few empty words on stronger growth but nothing tangible, for instance, on combating youth unemployment.

What is more, back at home, the leaders’ fine European professions of faith evaporate. President Sarkozy claims to be leading Europe and boasted of having created the Treaty of Lisbon. Now, as an electoral candidate, Mr Sarkozy is threatening to leave Schengen. Has he not yet noticed that the Schengen agreements are an integral part of the Treaty, Article 67 of which makes the ‘absence of internal border controls for persons mandatory? In order to leave Schengen, France would therefore have to leave the European Union.

In any case, I wonder what Mr Sarkozy wants to check. Is it the 1.4 billion annual movements at internal borders? Is it the millions of tourists that flock to France every summer? Is it the half a million French people who are frontier workers in neighbouring countries? All these populist initiatives merely serve to conceal the inability of the leaders to commit to a real growth policy. This was apparent in the case of Greece, where Europe imposed measures that have led to a contraction in domestic demand, the bankruptcy of 200 000 small and medium-sized enterprises and the erosion of the purchasing power of the Greeks. Now, Greece’s growth is at a standstill.

  Alexander Graf Lambsdorff (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, we all agree that we want a stability culture in Europe. That is at least what we are constantly hearing. We also need to assess what has been achieved with the fiscal compact, which represents an important step towards the stability culture. It is not a turning point and it is not the solution. It is also not a universal remedy. We can all agree on that. However, I believe that it is an important step forward, and this needs to be said for the sake of truth.

We want balanced budgets with very low primary deficits, if these cannot be avoided. We want a debt brake in the euro area countries. We want automatic sanctions for offenders before things go wrong. We want old debts to be reduced and the results to be reported to Brussels before new debts are incurred. We want the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) to come into effect earlier. We must also make sure that only those countries which join the fiscal compact have access to the ESM.

These are all important elements of a stability culture in Europe and, with the ‘two-pack’, we are attempting to implement this under European law, including a debt redemption pact, which is something my group is specifically calling for. We want to stimulate growth in Greece and the money to do this is available. Between EUR 16 billion and EUR 18 billion – the numbers vary – can be provided from the Structural Funds. I believe that we finally need to get started with this. Everything that Mr Reichenbach and the Troika have so far achieved in Greece is not enough to give a real boost to growth. Then, today, there was a debate in the German Parliament which surprised me, because the Social Democrats are threatening to vote against the fiscal compact unless it includes a particular tax, which would justifiably be controversial. I believe this would be a huge mistake. I also think it is important for the Social Democrats to become aware of their responsibilities in terms of stability policy and to vote in favour of the compact without playing party political games.

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the central issue for us is to make progress on the road towards a stability culture. I would like to finish by congratulating you, Mr Van Rompuy, on your reappointment. Everyone agrees that you are doing an excellent job. However, I am still of the opinion that your position, as it is enshrined in the Treaty of Lisbon, is a mistake. I would prefer to have a President of Europe who, if possible, was also directly elected.

  Pascal Canfin (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, Mr Barroso, you have rightly spoken about tax evasion. You know that this struggle is extremely important for us, because it is a struggle that revolves around economic efficiency and social justice. Talking about these matters is all very well, but we would like to see action.

Where are the Commission’s statements? Where is the pressure from the Commission to help Greece to try to recover the EUR 100 to 200 billion that are in Switzerland, according to the Greek Government’s estimates? I know that this is not necessarily Greece’s priority. Greece holds the primary responsibility for this inability to genuinely levy tax. All the same, where is the action by the Commission to exert pressure on Switzerland, so that the money can be taxed and then return to Greece?

Just now, Daniel Cohn-Bendit was talking about what President Obama did in relation to the Swiss banks and banking secrecy. Where is the initiative by the European Commission to do exactly what Mr Obama did, namely, to impose an extra-territorial law that is binding and eliminates banking secrecy? Where is the Commission’s initiative to have a European list of tax havens? On the OECD’s blacklist, there is one state, or two states, or, from time to time, three states; they sign mutual conventions, and then there is no one left on the list. All of a sudden, the struggle is empty, because the blacklist is empty. Where is the Commission’s initiative? I want to see concrete answers, because it is all very well to make these grand declarations before Parliament, but it is actually much better to take tangible political action to put pressure on these states. I am fully aware that these states constitute the main obstacle to progress. We need you, however, to put pressure on the states.

Mr Barroso, I would like to put a final question to you, not about tax havens, but about austerity. When we have informal discussions with your departments and those of the Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, this is what your officials tell us. When you put all the austerity policies and the requirements that have now been imposed by the Commission to reduce budget deficits into the same economic model, it is not possible to show that there is truly a path that will enable us to reduce the deficits. In fact, growth is being damaged to such a degree, and tax revenue is being decreased to such an extent, that the end result is a greater deficit, not a lower one. That is the case, for example, in Spain. The debate is also a live issue in the Netherlands, and perhaps soon will be in France too.

Mr Barroso, the reality is that when you use these figures, it does not work. When are you going to admit this? When are you going to change direction?

  Jan Zahradil (ECR). - (CS) Mr President, a cartoon came out some time ago – in the Greek newspapers, I think – of Chancellor Merkel with a swastika on her sleeve, while the German newspapers were again writing about what a lazy lot the Greeks were. Is this normal? For me, it is unacceptable. I also wonder whether it was European integration that brought us to this pass, where European nations stick two fingers up and spit at each other. I have to say, unfortunately, that this is the case. This is indeed the result of a concept of European integration that is yours, yours and yours. The fiscal compact is just one further step on this path, which has nothing to do with fiscal discipline – itself a healthy and necessary thing – but only with creating a pretext for the further politicisation of the EU, and a further step towards political union, which, as is abundantly obvious, does not eliminate tension between nations, but increases it and revives old animosities. My own government did not sign the fiscal compact, and we have to decide whether to join the euro area at all, which must be the subject of a referendum, because the terms of accession to the euro area have changed dramatically from the situation when we signed the accession treaty, and it is therefore necessary for the citizens of the country to decide the matter in a popular vote.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, Mr Van Rompuy, Mr Barroso, all of you standing before me: two years ago, the leaders of the European Union and the Greek Prime Minister subjected the people of my country to a massive experiment. Greece was turned into a vehicle of the International Monetary Fund in the euro area. Today, the International Monetary Fund forms part of the institutional framework of the European Union.

The Greek experiment involves wage cuts, pension cuts, bonus cuts, cuts in spending on schools and hospitals, cuts to benefits and the abolition of collective agreements. What is the result of this experiment? Production declined by 7% last year, there are 1 million unemployed according to official figures, and 1.5 million according to unofficial figures, shops are closing down, workers are not being paid and the nation is feeling insulted and unhappy. Greece has gone bankrupt and the cost is being paid by its citizens, its young people and its families. The benefits are being reaped by the banks.

What have you decided now in the Council, Mr Barroso, Mr Van Rompuy? What are you discussing today? You have decided to let the idea of Europe go bankrupt. You have decided to let the idea of solidarity go bankrupt. You have decided on a Europe of strict fiscal prudence, a German Europe. You have decided on a Europe in which one person snitches on another, a Europe which is fearful of its people, a Europe which is fearful of referenda and the voice of the people.

However, Mr Barroso, Mr Van Rompuy, you should know that the people have not gone bankrupt and that they will shortly give their response and will trash such memoranda, contracts and treaties.

  Mario Borghezio (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have this morning heard many criticisms of the French President’s electoral posturing on immigration and on Schengen. This criticism has been developed from the point of view and through the lens of populism. Fair enough.

I would like to apply the same analysis to the news in all the major European dailies yesterday and today. I am referring to the important stance taken by the greatest progressive European philosopher, the elderly but very clear-sighted Mr Habermas, who has looked at the reform, the fiscal compact, from a very specific point of view. He says that this reform, this pact, should not be approved because it is like wanting to increase, or rather, fooling ourselves that we want to increase, integration among Member States without civic integration among citizens. He says that it highlights the fact that only a democratic Europe, only popular will – even expressed through a referendum I would say, but that is my opinion – could produce politically credible decisions. He calls the European Union arrogant in its dealings with citizens and dominated by speculators.

I had grown used to quoting Junger, but from now on, I will quote Habermas when criticising, from a populist and democratic point of view, your bad decisions which impact on the people. Maybe they are taken by the inner circle – the inner circle of the Bilderberg or Trilateral meetings – but they are obviously not taken here. Such decisions are then imposed on the people, without caring one jot about the real economy of those who work and sweat, workers and entrepreneurs.

  Trevor Colman (NI). – Mr President, last week, the British Government’s Joint Committee on National Security strategy warned that ministers should draw up plans to deal with the break up of the eurozone. This important committee warned of economic instability, political unrest on the continent and a rise in the number of economic migrants fleeing the chaos of the eurozone and arriving at our borders.

In the current crisis, illegal immigration has become such a problem that – as we have heard many times this morning – this week, President Sarkozy has threatened to withdraw France from the Schengen Agreement. In the long term, the committee has stated that eurozone countries may be unable to maintain their national defences, jeopardising the security of Europe and the integrity of NATO. This is how the EU’s damaging fiscal policy is viewed by the real world.

  Mario Mauro (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I felt obliged to begin with Mr Swoboda’s proud defence of the welfare system, as I do not believe that the claims made by the President of the European Central Bank should be read ideologically, rather, they look to me like a statement of fact: there are 500 million people in the EU, of which 75 million are under 25; if we think of Egypt, it is a country of 80 million people, and 60 million are under 25. This raises real questions about the size and structure of our welfare system, and we have to give real answers.

The truth is, when it comes to huge and genuine problems, European leaders go back and forth between populist outbursts, which get them into trouble and force them to pander to public opinion, and pragmatic solutions, which must be the main way to work out the timeframe for the recovery and the means by which it can be achieved.

In order to have a truly pragmatic approach, we have to focus everything on the instrument that we designed, as an institution, for this purpose. That means we have got to look to the Commission to impose itself on governments and, at the same time, nurture public debate among our citizens so as to create a practical consensus to Europe as a project.

We have got to strengthen the Commission right this instant. We have to strengthen the Commission, and Parliament must play a strategic role in this process. Otherwise, in quarrelling with governments which are increasingly dragged into things in the name of increasingly populist public opinion, we will be forced into an unprecedented capitulation.

  Elisa Ferreira (S&D). – (PT) Mr President, I would ask the President of the Commission why it is that the second Greek package will not work. It is for the same reason that the first did not work: because what is important is not the size of the countries’ debt, but rather their ability to manage the resources for paying this debt.

The Troika’s obsession with fiscal rigour is imposing payments, apparently unchecked, on the Greek economy that are pushing it year after year into a never-ending recession; it is not very clear to whom they answer. In a recession, there is no way of paying. In an economy in which exports account for no more than 20% of production, reducing wages and increasing taxes will not increase competitiveness, but will simply crush domestic demand.

Next year, Greece will have been in recession for five consecutive years; that is unique in European history. In 2011, production declined by 7%, 200 000 companies went out of business and unemployment hit 23% of the active population. Since the Troika came to Greece, 32 new types of tax have been introduced and there has been a 50% drop in disposable income.

In this context, the question is, what will be the source of the dynamic enabling Greece to pay that which it has borrowed and owes? Meanwhile, the second package provides for a primary surplus of 4.5%, in order for its targets to be hit. What is the source of Greece’s growth?

Meanwhile, the Troika recommendations accompanying the second package prescribe wage cuts of 22%, and of 32% for young people. The question is, are we at a turning point with the contamination existing in Europe? The situation we are in is certainly an emergency. Either sovereign debt is mutualised quickly and a veritable Marshall Plan for growth in Europe is launched, particularly for the countries that are currently in difficulties, or our turning point will, unfortunately, lead us off a cliff edge.

Saying this is regrettable, but I think the warning must be set out in a very clear way.

  Jelko Kacin (ALDE). – Mr President, I warmly welcome the Council decision to grant Serbia candidate status. It is a hugely positive step forward and recognition of Serbia’s reform effort. It is also an important step forward for all the neighbours and the region as a whole. This is also a last and dramatic wake-up call to Macedonia, which has been waiting in vain for the opening of accession negotiations for the past seven years.

Despite certain setbacks and delays, Belgrade has acted responsibly and engaged seriously in a dialogue with Priština. Implementation of all agreements reached to date has begun. I hope the authorities will keep up this positive momentum and continue with implementation in good faith, including integrated border management.

The outstanding issue in Serbia today is systemic corruption and the political influence of the judiciary. Serbian leaders need to do more in the fight against corruption, while at the same time ensuring a genuine rule of law in the country. This is needed to make possible the early opening of Chapters 23 and 24 of the accession negotiations. I hope Serbia will remain ambitious in striving for the quick opening of accession negotiations. It is essential that Belgrade keeps its constructive approach towards Kosovo during and after the election campaign. The so-called parallel structures in north Kosovo must begin to be carefully removed so that EULEX and KFOR can fully execute their mandate.

  Jill Evans (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, the series of European summits we have seen since May 2010 has taken place against the backdrop of massive protests against cuts in public spending and job losses, and yet the result of this March Council has shown once again that government leaders are focused on spending cuts as the way forward.

We all know the magnitude of this crisis, but I believe that crisis demands radical rethinking; it is a time to seize new opportunities, to learn from past mistakes and make sure that we do not repeat them. The European economy has to be put on a path that will equip it for future challenges, for example, investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency projects that we know will create thousands of sustainable jobs as well as protecting the environment.

We need a long-term plan for financial, social and environmental recovery. But the response that we have now is one in which the costs are borne by the most vulnerable in society, those least responsible for causing such havoc in the economy. It is unacceptable that young people in particular feel more excluded and rejected instead of being encouraged to play a full part in building the kind of Europe that we want to see. We have to show solidarity with all the people of Europe.

I know from my constituency in Wales that we also have an awful lot to do to restore trust and confidence in the EU. To do this, we need a real programme investing in people, jobs and infrastructure to kick-start economic recovery.

  Derk Jan Eppink (ECR). – Mr President, people lose confidence in Europe because its leaders are misdiagnosing the euro crisis. In 2010, Mr Barroso said the euro is a protection shield against the crisis, but the euro fuelled the crisis – cheap money generated debt and bubbles. Last year, Mr Van Rompuy said the fundamentals of the euro are sound, yet the euro caused a huge competitiveness gap in its own zone. Last year, he said that stress tests show that European banks were doing well; recently, the ECB injected EUR 1 trillion to prevent their collapse. Last weekend, he said the worst of the crisis is behind us; on the same day, German Minister of Finance Mr Schäuble, said Greece may need a third bail-out. The day before, the President of the ECB, Mr Draghi, predicted that there was more economic contraction to come, and Spain announced it would break the fiscal compact shortly after signing it. Even the Dutch Government, the headmaster of fiscal discipline, is struggling. Mr Van Rompuy and Mr Barroso, are you amazed that ordinary citizens do not believe you any more?

IN THE CHAIR: GIANNI PITTELLA
Vice-President

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, all the conclusions of the European Council represent is the institutionalisation of the same policies that led to the present tragic social situation, which are deepening it by increasing unemployment, by reducing wages, by scaling back the welfare state and by abolishing public services. Behind the technocratic language and words about budgetary consolidation is hidden this single reality: families being condemned to poverty and despair.

Reaffirming the targets of the Europe 2020 strategy, of the Stability and Growth Pact, of economic governance and of the Euro Plus Pact translates to attacks on wages, to an assault on labour and social rights, to the facilitation of redundancies, and to the privatisation of public services; in other words, to the peoples giving up their collective wealth. At the same time as this is being imposed on the workers, the European Central Bank is injecting EUR 500 billion of liquidity into private banks, at 1% interest rates.

The signing of the so-called fiscal compact and the European Stability Mechanism treaty, in breach of the European Union’s own rules, constitutes an unacceptable assault on the sovereignty of the Member States, which are losing the capacity for sovereign decisions on budgetary matters, so paving the way for the establishment of colonial-type relationships in the European Union, in which big capital rules, alongside the major powers, such as Germany.

In case you had not noticed, ladies and gentlemen, the peoples and workers of Europe are fighting this course of action. The Portuguese workers, too, will participate en masse in the next great day of struggle against these austerity measures: the general strike in Portugal on 22 March.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD) . – (LT) Mr President, it seems that the European Council’s decisions on Greece at the beginning of March have been beneficial. At least it appears that way. However, when considering the future, we should remember the words spoken right here by the Italian Prime Minister Professor Monti – that democracy and globalisation can and must live alongside one another. Indeed, if we want to preserve Europe as a Union of sovereign states, we must, in principle, change our attitude to responsibility. Member State governments must follow responsible policies and if such policies actually become every country’s alpha and omega, then there will be no need for any fiscal discipline treaties. We will only be able to save the European Union if Member States follow such a principle and handle their finances responsibly, and pay due attention to promoting the single market, innovations and research.

  Philip Claeys (NI). – (NL) Mr President, in the conclusions of the European Council of 1-2 March, towards the end, in the section ‘Any other business’, in paragraph 45, to be exact, a grand total of two whole lines were devoted to the fact that Herman Van Rompuy had been reappointed President of the European Council. My sincere congratulations, Mr Van Rompuy, but this may well be an indication that there is something wrong with the democratic legitimacy of the whole way that the European Union functions.

You talked about a turning point and said you had found the banks willing to write off a large proportion of the Greek debt. I fear that you are continuing to give a somewhat rosy picture of the situation, because, fundamentally, nothing has changed. Soon, Greece will again be receiving a new multi-billion euro handout and then, as usual, it will only be a matter of time before it needs more money. This is why we are all going to continue muddling on, with no prospect of anything improving.

It is not only in the interests of the euro area, but also in the interests of the Greeks themselves, that Greece exits the euro area in a supported way. That is the only way in which Greece can be helped out of bankruptcy in the long term, because the country is now trapped in a monetary union for which it is simply not competitive enough. Yet another bailout will not do anything to change that situation.

Instead of carrying on holding the Greek people hostage over this whole sorry story, the European establishment would do better to admit that it was a mistake to allow Greece into the monetary union in the first place and that that mistake must now be rectified.

  Jean-Paul Gauzès (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, President Van Rompuy, first of all, let me congratulate you on your reappointment, Mr Van Rompuy. I am among those who, since you were first appointed, have been trying to explain to citizens that your task is a difficult one. I hope that you will continue to execute it with just as much persistence. I know that it is difficult.

Mr Barroso, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to talk about citizens. I am sorry to have to say today that Europe is losing its credibility. I will not get involved in the national electoral battle: this is neither the time nor the place for that. One may, however, ask why such statements may be publicly accepted. Due to the fact that they are not rejected by public opinion, they are adopted by a very large majority simply because our fellow citizens no longer have any faith in Europe. It may be possible to exercise faith in certain areas. However, I believe that for Europe, what we need is reality.

Today, I admire all those who, every month, or every week, make their speeches once again to say the same thing, and I pity those who write them, because what our citizens are looking for is action, and not words. We should spend less time speaking and more time taking action.

Today, there are various causes behind the weakening of Europe. The first is, clearly, the way that the crisis has led to nations turning in on themselves. Each country is seeing things only from its point of view, looking at what is going on nationally without taking into account the European dimension, which is the only one that might save us. The second cause is the weakening of the Commission. The Commission appears silent. I am not saying that the Commission is not doing anything: it is working, but no one notices what it is actually doing because there is no clear plan. What is missing is a small package of specific actions that would allow citizens to compare what has been announced with what has been done.

Let us take the case of Greece. It is very clear that Greece’s situation is tragic. Why are we giving the impression that it has now been resolved? It has not. One problem has been resolved to allow the plan to work, but in another year or two, problems will arise once again, because strong measures need to be taken. In addition, in the ‘two-pack’ that has been mentioned, I am proposing a safeguard measure for countries in difficulty. However, I was told by the Commission that it was an attack on the market. In fact, when you talk to the markets, what they want is to know where we are going and how we are getting there. They want to stick with the measures that have been taken, and not to change them every fortnight.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Liem Hoang Ngoc (S&D), Blue-card question. – (FR) Mr President, Mr Gauzès, you speak of the sovereignty of the people, but you have also spoken of the ‘two-pack’ for which you are the rapporteur. You want to transpose – and I am talking to you about a European text – you want to transpose a treaty into secondary European legislation. You want to transpose the treaty of austerity together with its symbol, the leaden rule. It is a leaden rule that will plunge Europe into recession, as my fellow Member, Mr Canfin, said. You want to transpose this leaden rule into secondary legislation even before the peoples of Europe have been able to take a decision and ratify the treaty. Mr Gauzès, my question is a simple one: you speak of the sovereignty of the people, so are you going to withdraw your Amendment 9 from this ‘two-pack’, which shows true contempt for democracy?

  Jean-Paul Gauzès (PPE), Blue-card answer. – (FR) Mr President, first of all, I would like to say here that I think what is in the treaty could very well appear in European law, and on this point I believe I am in agreement with the Commission. This was said just now by President Barroso, when he stated that the Commission is making proposals to include a number of parties. Therefore, I do not intend to withdraw anything at all. I believe that we need rigour. Only a fool builds his house on the sand. If we now want to get the situation back on track, we must simultaneously balance rigour and growth. Growth, however, is not to be sought in newspaper articles or theories. Growth must be found in innovation, in entrepreneurship, in the mobilisation of entrepreneurs and in confidence. That is what we should work on together.

  Enrique Guerrero Salom (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, congratulations. The conclusions of the meeting of the European Council take up 12 pages, something more than 300 lines, but not a single line on the possibly irreparable damage that is being done to the European political project.

Europe is a project of competitive economy, citizenship and social model. The competitive economy cannot move forward without policies for growth. Citizenship takes a step back with proposals such as those put forward by Mr Sarkozy in relation to Schengen and the social model suffers when the trade unions are attacked, when social dialogue is weakened, and that is happening in many countries, including Spain.

The people who are destroying the European political project today are the leaders who park their Europeanism when they are facing difficult elections; elections that are difficult for them, not for their countries.

The people who are attacking the European model today are those who confront Europe with their fearful, national public opinions. That is not leadership; it is opportunism, populism, and I think it is time that the debate on these matters also finds its place in the European Council.

  Olle Schmidt (ALDE). – (SV) Mr President, keeping the EU together despite the tensions that exist between regions and countries is now the most important task for the leaders of the Union. President Sarkozy ought to stop and think and not incite nationalist sentiments. History ought to have taught him that lesson.

In the European Parliament’s annual tax report, for which I was responsible, we state that extensive and sustainable budgetary consolidation is necessary, but we must also focus on growth. It is a question of how, at national and EU level, we can create more growth in Europe and therefore a higher level of employment. What is particularly important is that we consider how we can improve the internal market and create a more competitive Europe.

Combating youth unemployment, promoting growth and conditions for small enterprises and removing tax obstacles are crucial. We risk leaving a whole generation in Europe without the hope of a better future.

Let me end by saying that when listening to Mr Farage, Mr Eppink, Mr Gollnisch and the others, I think that sometimes they ought to remember what European history is all about. I think that we in this Chamber ought to remember this. Previously in history, Mr Gollnisch, we solved the problem on the battlefield. We do not do that now. I listen to you, you listen to me, and I think that is the way we should all prefer the history of Europe. Mr Gollnisch, I think you are damaging the European idea of working together, and it is not our fault; I think you should also consider your own responsibility.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Mr President, at a future time of financial stability, it will be appropriate that all measures as defined in the original Stability and Growth Pact are adhered to by all governments. However, when Parliament discussed the economic governance package of legislation, this House also acknowledged that sanctions and fines only work once countries have returned to a path of stability, already in conformity with the Stability and Growth Pact, and, above all, have returned to economic growth.

It is therefore disingenuous of the Commission to overrule the new government of Spain when it comes to the implementation of the agreed structural reforms and their corresponding deficit reduction. If the Spanish Government’s statement about the 2011 deviation of two and a half percent of the public deficit, together with drastically changed economic growth forecasts, will make the previously set target unachievable, then why will the Commission not revisit the targets? At a time of crisis, targets should be fluid and amended as appropriate, given changing economics.

We need to give Member States that are truly committed to the reform programme the time and leeway to meet the longer-term competitiveness goals in the best way for them. Each Member State will need to take specific measures to return to economic health and should not be sacrificed – in the words of the Euro Group President, Mr Juncker – to maintaining the credibility of new EU rules.

  Jürgen Klute (GUE/NGL). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Van Rompuy, Mr Barroso, what will the citizens of Europe think of the way in which we are handling the crisis after the last summit? They will realise that the banks are receiving around EUR 1 trillion from the European Central Bank (ECB) without any conditions being imposed on them. No strings are attached to this money and the banks can use it for whatever purpose they want.

In contrast, the countries that are in crisis are being gagged and forced to introduce disastrous austerity measures. The citizens of the crisis countries are having to put up with cuts in their pay, pensions and social security benefits.

However, unlike Germany, the economies of these crisis countries are not dependent on exports, but on their own internal markets. It is precisely these markets which are being destroyed by the austerity policies that have been imposed. This is not the right way to get out of the crisis, Mr Barroso, Mr Van Rompuy. In political terms, the EU is being driven into a brick wall.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD). – (EL) Mr President, I fear that we talk about growth in theory, but, in fact, all we are interested in is fiscal prudence. However, fiscal prudence alone causes more problems than it solves. We must not forget that taxes kill taxes.

Apparently, tax evasion at European level is spiralling out of control. The insurance problem is the next time bomb in the foundations of the system. Unemployment is snowballing. Unemployment in Greece topped 21% in December. One in two young people between the ages of 15 and 24 are unemployed. Small and medium-sized enterprises, which form the backbone of society, are closing down one after another. These problems are emerging in almost every Member State of the European Union. The social fabric of Europe is at risk.

Mr Van Rompuy, my congratulations on your reappointment, but I should like to remind both you and Mr Barroso that you should not rest on your laurels, because sometimes congratulations are more painful than condolences. It is time to move onwards and upwards.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, significant progress was made in the last Council meeting towards putting Europe on track for more growth and sustainable development. An example of this is the ‘two-pack’. However, one thing is clear. The Europe 2020 strategy calls for us to move forward as quickly as possible. The internal market must be completed and we need to promote innovation and research in order to create jobs. However, I am extremely concerned about youth unemployment. We must do everything we can to reduce the current figures and give young people a fair chance. I believe that increased investment in education and training represents the best way of ensuring that young people have the right opportunities. Let us give our young people this chance, because it is their right.

  Jacek Saryusz-Wolski (PPE). – Mr President, I think time flies quicker than the Councils are able to meet. On the economic crisis, nearly everything has been said but actions – as we witness here – are not considered to be sufficient. We obviously need both consolidation and growth, but we should practise growth and not preach. You can decree austerity and sanctions but you cannot decree growth.

This debate reminds me of the Realsozialismus debates and decreeing growth in the so-called Socialist countries. First, we have to mutualise debt and then to create growth bonds – not stability, not project, but growth bonds – using the EIB EIF facility. But we tend to forget the context of the crisis which is, first, collective fatigue, the fading away of political will and a rise in national egoism. Secondly, nationalistic sentiments, such as the Wilders Internet site, appear, along with the risk of spreading this nationalism all over Europe in this time of crisis, violating the fundamental values and freedom of movement in the European Union. Third comes the collateral damage this crisis is doing to foreign policy, which is getting weaker and weaker, and to the risk of Schengen being dismantled. The fourth risk, in this context, is double standards being applied. Greece: an admirable saving operation to be applauded, not only for economic reasons but on the grounds of solidarity, and also for geopolitical reasons, because Greece is the eastern flank of the Union – but the worst economic performer in the Union today.

At the same time, we have a different standard being applied to Hungary, which, having being left by the Socialist government of Gyurcsány with an economy in a catastrophic state, has made courageous efforts to reduce debt and has been blindly punished by President Barroso’s Commission. Today, Spain is getting concessions to lower its deficit target: 0.25 for Hungary is punished while a +1.4 deficit target for Spain is rewarded. What signal does this send to the sinners and the reformers? Is it the difference between being in the euro area and outside? This is not a coherent policy.

  Pervenche Berès (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, Mr Vice-President, may I ask you to deliver a message to our President, to thank him and congratulate him on his action at the European Council? I believe that he had a significant impact on the debates by posing the question that is key for European identity: both that of the European social model and that of the democratic legitimacy of the processes embarked upon. This European Council has seen the signing of a treaty when even a government that is one of the most fervent advocates of a ‘Merkozy’ strategy now finds itself in difficulty. In my view, neither Spain nor the Netherlands could reasonably apply this treaty.

I have understood, though, that in parallel, suddenly, our leaders have apparently discovered that they must also talk of growth, but not in the same way, not with the same golden rules, but with soft rules. I must say to you that there will be no more growth if you only apply the rule of the internal market, which is just a rule of negative integration, whereas your conclusions turn their back on the balance that had been enshrined in the Europe 2020 strategy. You are unravelling this strategy and rewriting it after less than two years. The destruction of the European social model will not bring about more growth. There will not be more growth while those who claim they want to protect it are undermining the foundations of European identity. There will be more growth if you think, first and foremost, about jobs, joint industrial strategies, a European energy community and specific combating of tax evasion, instead of waiting countless months before negotiating and denouncing the unilateral strategies of some Member States. There will be no growth without consistent commitments by the Member States when we negotiate the financial framework and the introduction of an own resource on the basis of Eurobonds and a tax on financial transactions.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. – (FR) Mr President, I will respond specifically to the questions that have been raised. First of all, there was a question on the letter from the 12 governments. I said at the European Council meeting that I could endorse practically every word of that letter. They were all elements that were very important for growth, particularly the development of the internal market and structural reforms. However, I also pointed out to the Member States two aspects which seemed important to me. First of all, there is no reference in the letter to the social dimension or the need to combat poverty. I believe that we need to combine a number of structural reform measures with measures that are proactive in social terms. Secondly, I made clear to the European Council how shocked I was that there is not a single reference to the Europe 2020 strategy. That means that a strategy which was adopted unanimously by the European Council has not even been mentioned by the Heads of State or Government.

(Applause)

I am appealing to Parliament on this, because we now have a strategy and we must apply it, determinedly, to all these areas. That is what I was referring to when I talked of ownership of the strategy at all levels. However, in the reply I sent to the 12 Heads of State or Government, I also enclosed an annex outlining everything that is already being done by the European institutions; that is to say, not only by the European Council, but also by the Commission and the Council. It is clear from this document that some of the issues are being blocked by the very same governments that signed the letter.

One example is the European patent. We have been discussing the possibility of having a European patent for 30 years. Nonetheless, we now have governments which are calling for more to be done for growth, but are still blocking the European patent.

(Applause)

That is why we need to be in agreement. Let us look at what people talk about when they speak of Europe. When it is said that Europe has some problems at the moment, which is true, we must look at which parties are doing their best to move European projects forward and which are sometimes blocking decisions at European level. I believe that this is a vital precondition for a debate that is not only politically but also intellectually honest.

The issue of Greece is one that demands such honesty. Greece is not in this situation because of the euro, because in truth, there are other countries outside the euro area which have also had need of assistance programmes. There are other countries even outside the European Union – the first that comes to mind is Iceland – which have had problems closely approaching a general crisis for the Member States.

The problem that we are experiencing today is chiefly due to two things: firstly, the unsustainable nature of many of our countries’ public debts and, secondly, and not necessarily in that order, irresponsible financial conduct in many spheres, particularly outside Europe.

We now have a response, therefore, which is undoubtedly more difficult in terms of structure because of the euro, since we are a monetary union which has not yet fully established all the instruments of economic union and we are in the midst of giving an urgent response to the challenge. It is, however, intellectually and politically mistaken to say that the current crisis is a result of the euro. Quite the reverse: the euro may be the solution to the current crisis.

(Applause)

That is why, to be honest, I cannot accept the words of some people who say here that they truly share Greece’s suffering, and that they regret all the difficulties that it is going through. Their government has not, however, spent a single euro, or a single pound to help Greece.

(Applause)

That is not the kind of solidarity we need. Look at what they are proposing as a solution for Greece: default. Default is apparently the solution. I would really like someone to explain to me why the default of a European Union Member State could be the solution. What kind of confidence could there be in that country in terms of investment? How could deadlock throughout that country, the paralysis of its public services, the inability to pay public officials and the closure of hospitals and schools be a solution for the country? Come on, we have to be serious here. Suggesting default as a solution for Greece is truly an instance of political and intellectual dishonesty such as I have rarely seen before.

(Applause)

There are also some people who say that this programme for Greece is not going to work, that it is an invention of the Troika. Well, let us be clear on this subject as well. The programme for Greece is the programme that was unanimously adopted by the Member States of the euro area. The so-called Troika, namely, the Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund, has acted within the framework of the mandate it received, in line with the aid that was available. That is the question.

So now, all those who wish to help Greece – which approved the programme, not just through its government, but also through its parliament, with the two main parties – instead of starting to say that it will never work, I really think they would do better to help us to help Greece. Granted, it is extremely difficult; granted, there are enormous costs; granted, we will have to see how we can help Greece to bear certain social costs which, in the short term, are immense. The truth is, though, that there is no other real solution than to promote structural reform so that Greece can regain the competitiveness it really needs.

Another question was on equity and standards, and was raised just now by my friend, Mr Saryusz-Wolski. Here, the response must be absolutely clear. The Commission will do all it can to apply all the treaties in an absolutely equitable way, without any discrimination. The example you mentioned of Hungary and Spain, frankly, does not make sense, because there is a vital difference: Hungary was due to achieve its aim of reducing the deficit in 2011; Spain must do so by 2013. We have proposed certain measures to Hungary, but they are not the only ones. There were five countries to which we made proposals: Poland, Cyprus, Malta, Belgium and Hungary. All but Hungary accepted them. It was not a case of special treatment for Hungary; it was Hungary that did not wish to adopt the proposals made by the Commission, in contrast to Poland, Cyprus, Malta and Belgium, namely, both countries which are in the euro area and countries which are not.

I tell you this quite openly because it would be a mistake now to create artificial divides between the countries in the euro area and those outside it. The Commission has always supported the integrity of the European Union and we are not going to have two different standards depending on the position of each of our countries.

Finally, as well as very interesting and very useful aspects to the debate, I have nonetheless noted several points on which there was consensus, at least among the largest political groupings. Firstly, we need to do more to combat youth unemployment, using the action teams that we have created. We must combat tax evasion. I would like to remind the Members of this Parliament that the Commission has not just made statements, but it has already made some proposals. Our initiative is called the ‘Savings Directive’, and we have also put forward a mandate for negotiation with third countries. The proposal has been before the Council for many months, but is blocked by two Member States. As you know, unanimity is required. Therefore, if you want to criticise someone, do not criticise the Commission; instead, help us to remove the obstacles posed by two of our Member States.

With regard to Greece, I can tell you that it was one of the subjects of my conversation with Prime Minister Papademos and six other members of my Commission. I called upon them to ensure – even before a comprehensive agreement by the European Union with Switzerland, and with other countries – that Greece enters into a bilateral agreement with Switzerland, which complies, of course, with EU law. Not only did I mention this to the Greek prime minister, but I had already mentioned it to the previous President of the Swiss Confederation, on the last occasion.

Another aspect of the consensus I have seen here relates to the need to bring the single internal market to completion. I have already announced that some time in the autumn, the Commission will put forward the Single Market Act, and you can count on us to do that. There is also agreement on the need to match our action with investment. That is why we have tabled this before the European Council. It was favourably received, but now we must actually find the legislative text, the project bonds, to make some investment by anticipating now what we hope to have in due course in the financial framework, and because we are in agreement on this point.

The question is whether we have the resources for this investment. The truth is that in most of our Member States, we do not have any budgetary margin for much public investment. That is why we need – and I think that on this point the major political groupings are in agreement – to work together to obtain certain resources for a European investment, either through performance bonds, or project bonds, or the future financial framework.

I hope that Parliament will work with the Commission to ensure that our results match our ambitions. It will be necessary, too, to use all the growth levers, such as innovation and research, and also our European instruments, but that will demand a lot of work and a lot of determination. I truly believe that in order to achieve growth in Europe, we do not need more announcements of growth. What we need is not more announcements but commitment in implementation and execution and determination. This is how we will be able to fulfil the commitments and promises that we have made, and by ‘we’ I mean all the institutions and also each of our Member States.

IN THE CHAIR: MARTIN SCHULZ
President

  Herman Van Rompuy, European Council. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish first to thank all those who have congratulated me on my re-election. I saw that enthusiasm varied across the House, but, as I always say: ‘no one is obliged to be enthusiastic’.

There have been many criticisms of the overall approach, but our general strategy, which we have adopted both at EU and Member State level, is a strategy that has been supported by all the Member States, by all the Prime Ministers and Heads of State since the start of the crisis, two and a half years ago. That includes those who have since left the Council, because of those who elected me two and a half years ago, only 12 remain.

The current composition of the European Council supports this strategy. At the last Council meeting too, all 27 countries signed the treaty on what is called the fiscal compact. One may criticise the overall approach, but I would simply say that, over the last two and a half years, this strategy has been the European Council’s unanimous strategy. Of course, everyone is aware that this is a difficult and unpopular road and that it will only produce results in the medium term or even, in some cases, in the long term. That is, however, the road that we have chosen and we will keep to it.

During my introductory speech, I said, extremely prudently:

Our strategy is going to work. We have reached a turning point’.

(FR) Normally, I am very prudent. In this case too, I have also been very prudent. I was translated as having said that it was the end of the crisis, etc. That was not the case at all. Fear not, I said that it was the turning point in a very serious crisis. In the press, which is totally opposed to the European project and the euro project, there is no more talk of the end of the euro area. The fact that there is no more talk of this nature is quite significant. Of course, not all the problems have been resolved. When I see that the interbank market is recovering after months of inertia, that there is a significant drop in interest rates in several countries that had been under pressure, we can say, in fact, that we have reached the bottom of the trough. However, there is still a long way to go.

The most guaranteed way to have positive economic growth like that of 2010 and 2011, and which we do not have in 2012, is, of course, to re-establish confidence in the future of the euro area. This is the top precondition for growth. What is missing in several countries now is this confidence on the part of consumers and investors in the future of the euro area. With the signs that growth in the euro is returning, consumers and investors may follow.

We are told that structural reform is needed. I was under the impression that this was a reference to structural reform in the Member States. In fact, it is a reference to firewalls and other initiatives in the financial sphere. However, what is being forgotten is that outside the firewalls, on which, I believe, decisions will be taken in the coming weeks, what really lasts – and, of course, there has been too little discussion of this – is structural reforms in the employment market and the goods market. What we need is to restore competitiveness simultaneously to the Member States and the EU in general. Otherwise, this crisis will return at some stage.

What has truly astonished me here is that the term ‘European Semester’ has not been said once. Some have made a very slight allusion to it. The European Council’s aim was, in fact, to evaluate the European Semester, to see what progress we have made on it, in budgetary, macro-economic and employment terms. The Member States are being asked to introduce their reform plans and stability plans during the next few weeks. In May, recommendations will be given, through the Commission. At the Council meeting in June, the matter will be discussed again. If the European Semester is not taken seriously, the crisis will happen again at some stage. I am disappointed to have heard no mention, or very little, of this essential project, which was approved by the European Parliament and adopted very enthusiastically at the time. The major challenge during a period of inevitable fiscal consolidation, in almost all the countries, is to maintain long-term policies. The President of the Commission rightly pointed to the Europe 2020 strategy, and the whole art of fiscal consolidation is to establish priorities, to consolidate and, in general, to reduce deficits and debt levels while protecting the future, while preserving a certain type of spending within research and development, education, youth training, and investment, particularly on climate change. Establishing the priorities within fiscal consolidation work: that is the great challenge.

Of course, in addition to that, there is equity. That is why the banks have been asked for a huge contribution. They are losing 70% of the current value of the Greek debt in contributions to the Greek recovery. I agree with all those who have argued for even stronger measures against fraud and tax evasion. The Commission has just set out the measures it has taken. Of course, there is the unanimity rule with regard to taxation, but many things can be achieved at national level. We do not always need a European framework. The problem in Greece is that of collecting taxes. That is the greatest injustice and the very source of its huge public deficit. In the midst of the fiscal consolidation policy, solidarity must, of course, be maintained. That is why, at European Union level, we have granted aid to Greece which is equivalent to 100% of Greek GDP. If even more solid proof is required of the European Union’s solidarity towards countries in difficulty, the figure speaks volumes.

We must, in the midst of the fiscal consolidation policy, keep our sights on climate objectives. Two are on track. We need to work more on another, relating to energy efficiency. We are calling once again on the Member States, in addition to fiscal consolidation, to implement a specific employment policy. That is why we are looking forward to their plans for employment, due in April. We will evaluate them and that will be included within the recommendations we make in relation to the Member States in June.

We need a special policy for Greece, and we are working on it. The Greek Prime Minister is fully committed to this path. Going further with the single market does not cost anything in budget terms. Another issue is the letter from the 12 governments. I do not agree with those who have said that the letter has not been taken into account. Quite the reverse: in fact, after a careful reading of the final draft conclusion, dealing with issues including the single market, which I submitted to the European Council, there was scarcely any debate. This was because the elements in the letter which enjoyed a consensus had already been taken into account to a great extent.

Do we need to go further still with a recovery policy? I have heard words to that effect. However, the days when we used to create a recovery policy through public expenditure, as in the past, are now over. A much more subtle and sophisticated approach is needed.

We cannot avoid a budgetary consolidation policy, but within this policy we must, as I have said, keep our sights set on some expenditure that generates growth and jobs.

(NL) A final word about Syria and Bosnia. As far as Syria is concerned, we can go much further, under one condition: that we get a mandate from the Security Council of the United Nations. It is not Europe, not European countries, that are standing in the way, but two countries that have also been specifically named in the decisions of the European Council that are preventing us from taking much more decisive action in relation to Syria. It is not our call.

And if we want to go further on the humanitarian front, as well, and if we want to protect people who are providing on-the-spot humanitarian aid, we need to get a mandate from the United Nations. We had that mandate for Libya and we made full use of it – albeit in different circumstances and for different purposes – but we have no mandate for Syria.

As for Bosnia, I have had a very interesting meeting with the new Prime Minister of Bosnia and Herzegovina who showed that the new BiH Government has a new, fundamentally European, orientation. The European institutions, the European Union, are prepared to respond to that as soon as possible, in such a way that this country, too, will be able to maintain its European prospects. This is the first evidence of a genuine European will in that country, which played such a tragic role in a civil war on the very borders of the European Union.

(FR) Those were a few comments I had following the debate. I would like to thank all those who spoke.

  President. – Thank you very much, Mr Van Rompuy. You said that the enthusiasm about your re-election was expressed in different forms on the various sides of the House. I believe that it is quite normal for the level of enthusiasm in a parliament made up of different political complexions to be limited. However, I can assure you of one thing. The entire European Parliament congratulates you on your re-election. You should also be aware that we understand how difficult your job is.

I would also like to say at this point that your personal attitude and your absolute integrity have impressed the whole of this House. Congratulations!

  Carl Haglund (ALDE). – Mr President, let me just briefly say that I am glad that the Council again underlined the fact that sustainable growth and jobs cannot be built on deficit and excessive debt levels. That was a good statement; something that we have been working on through the ‘six-pack’ and I was also glad to hear that Mr van Rompuy referred to the ‘six-pack’ because it has actually worked. Four countries have actually taken some very important corrective action thanks to the ‘six-pack’, though it is unfortunate that Hungary has not been able to do so.

Considering the ‘two-pack’ negotiations which are ongoing, I guess it would be really good if the Council would this time endorse the fact that we need more automaticity in order to have a credible ‘two-pack’ result. In the ‘six-pack’ negotiations, the Council was against this approach; we were persistent and the outcome was very good.

Mr Verhofstadt has already spoken about the Redemption Fund. I only want to say that I am sure that if we do not do this, we are going to keep beefing up the so-called rescue mechanisms to the bitter end, due to market pressure.

Concerning the 2020 strategy, I tend to share the slightly cynical approach taken by Mr Barroso earlier. We have to remember that despite all these good promises and decisions – for instance in the latest Council meeting – the same Council wanted to cut EUR 560 million from research and innovation in the budget of 2012. Luckily, the Parliament was able to stop this, but this just proves again that the Council does not live up to its own goals and decisions and you have much work to do in the Council.

IN THE CHAIR: ALEXANDER ALVARO
Vice-President

  Pablo Zalba Bidegain (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this is my third speech in the House so far this year on this issue and I am sorry to stick to the same refrain but, as my fellow countryman, Miguel de Unamuno, used to say: ‘to strike the nail once, you must strike the horseshoe a hundred times’. Furthermore, I want to repeat the call to actively implement the measures that have been agreed in the last few Councils.

As the President of the Commission has said, we need to finish the job. We need growth, ladies and gentlemen. With austerity, we will manage to create stability and confidence, but we also have to emerge from the crisis and create work and well-being once more.

We need to commit to urgent implementation of the measures that were agreed upon in the last few Councils to incentivise growth. These measures must be accompanied by reforms. Spain is clearly committed to this spirit of reform. In less than 100 days, we have passed three key reforms: budgetary stability, financial reform and labour reform and this spirit of reform does not end here.

As Mariano Rajoy says, the Spanish Government not only announces reforms, it carries them out, which is a different thing altogether. Let us follow its example. Let us not announce plans for growth, let us implement them. Furthermore, we need a degree of adaptability to circumstances given that we live in a world of constant change and evolution.

As the President of the government of Spain, Mariano Rajoy, said recently before the House and as the Economy Minister, Luis de Guindos confirmed today, Spain is fulfilling its duties and will continue to do so. Spain is more committed than ever to Europe. It has demonstrated this right from the start, putting its cards on the table and standing by its desire to comply with what has been agreed.

  Udo Bullmann (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this is the reality of economic development. The Italian economy began to grow at the beginning of the year and in Spain, the signs of growth are even clearer. The situation in Portugal is no better. There are even problems in the Netherlands and industrial order books are shrinking in Germany.

Mr Barroso said before he left that we had had a useful discussion this morning. I am currently trying to work out what he meant by that. Mr Barroso and Mr Van Rompuy said ‘growth and employment’ around 10 to 15 times this morning, it is true. Has that changed anything or will it change anything? No!

Repeating empty phrases will not result in any changes taking place. Therefore, I would like to know what is new about the way in which the European Council, the Member States and the Commission are dealing with the problem. Mr Barroso gave us one hint when he said that structural reforms must also involve social cohesion. It would be good if you could explain what you mean by that, because we have been arguing about it for quite some time. What do you mean by this? Do you agree with the idea proposed by Mr Swoboda and the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament that all young people must have prospects for the future, but it is just a question of how we ensure this is the case? Do you want minimum wages in all European Member States which adapt dynamically to productivity and growth? Is that what you want?

Then you say that growth is essential. Until now, your services have always denied that this had anything to do with investment, because you said that this only concerned structural reforms. This is why the memorandum of understanding in each individual case relating to this issue is so modest. Where is the investment channel that we argued about during the discussions on the ‘six-pack’? If you have nothing to say about investments, then you also have nothing to say about growth. The time for empty phrases has passed. We are waiting for an answer.

(Applause)

  György Schöpflin (PPE). – Mr President, the decision of the European Council to endorse Serbia’s candidacy has a two-fold significance. With respect to Serbia, it marks the definitive end to the aftermath of the Wars of the Yugoslav Succession, and the lingering assumption widely held at the time that the Serbs were somehow the hereditary villains of the Balkans. With the acceptance of Serbia’s candidacy, that particular canard has been laid to rest. Serbia can now be regarded as having returned to the European family and this has its long-term significance. After all, stability in south-eastern Europe is inconceivable without Serbia – and stability here has to extend to all policy areas, notably crime.

Without Serbia’s full commitment in the fight against organised crime, the Balkans would continue to constitute an easy prey for transnational mafias. But the step has a second, possibly greater significance. It makes it clear that EU enlargement, though moving forward only slowly, has not stalled. This obviously has implications for the rest of south-eastern Europe.

What is equally noteworthy is that, despite the economic crisis, the EU continues its commitment to enhancing the stability of its neighbourhood, relying on soft power to achieve this. The encouragement of the countries of the Eastern Partnership and the planned elaboration of a road map are evidently steps in the direction of ensuring that objective.

All these strategies and policy objectives, however, depend on overcoming the long drawn-out economic crisis, the central concern of the summit. Here, the decisions point in the right direction and it is absolutely crucial that fiscal discipline goes hand in hand with the recognition of the importance of economic growth. In the absence of this, the EU will find itself much less attractive and with much reduced soft power.

  Ivailo Kalfin (S&D). – Mr President, President Barroso has just said that there is no growth without stability and confidence, but that is a truism. He should also know that there is no stability and confidence without growth and a dynamic economy.

The problem which we can now identify in the actions of the Commission and the Council is that the measures taken for tackling the economic problems are of a different order. They are biased. On one side, we have fiscal measures that are entering into the legislation and that bring severe penalties as a consequence. On the other side – on the side of growth – we have words and nice declarations without budgetary support. The result is very clear. I had the chance to see it with my two socialist colleagues, Robert Goebbels and Elisa Ferreira in Greece: a freefall of the Greek economy and the inability to service the debt. These are the consequences of the European policy that Mr Barroso asks us to support. What is the solution? The solution is a structural change, a partial mutualisation of debt among powerful European budgets, based on own resources and project bonds.

  Theodor Dumitru Stolojan (PPE) . – (RO) Mr President, I would like to say in this House how pleased I am with the contribution that the European Council and European Commission have made to the calmer situation that prevails today concerning the issue of Member States with excessive debts. However, I must also state how disappointed I am because, even after this European Council meeting, Romania and Bulgaria are still outside the Schengen area, even though they have fulfilled all the conditions required by this agreement to be admitted into the Schengen area.

It is no coincidence that there is one Member State which opposes the entry of Romania and Bulgaria into the Schengen area. I use the phrase ‘no coincidence’ because in this Member State, the Netherlands, a small party which is in government has come up with the initiative to launch a website which is insulting to European values and insulting to the free movement of persons in the European Union. Unfortunately, the response from the European Commission and the European Council has been very ineffectual so far. I do not believe that we can tolerate such initiatives in any Member State, targeted against European values, and I hope that this afternoon, the European Parliament will adopt a firm stance by condemning such initiatives.

  Anni Podimata (S&D). – (EL) Mr President, firstly, allow me to say that I consider it encouraging that we now all acknowledge that focusing solely on fiscal restructuring measures will not get Greece out of the crisis or Europe out of stagnation. It is encouraging, but it is not enough.

We need binding decisions and projects, because words and wishes do not suffice. If we want to be specific and convincing towards the citizens of Europe, then we can and must link specific development measures, such as a financial transaction tax and Eurobonds, with the new fiscal compact.

Allow me, however, to address the various ‘Pythias’ inside and outside this Chamber talking about Greece leaving the euro for the sake of democracy and the prosperity of the Greek people. Clearly, everyone may have their own opinion, but democracy in this Parliament is non-negotiable.

For heaven’s sake, do not cite the interest of the Greek people. The overwhelming majority of 70% of the Greek people are in favour of Greece remaining in the euro and will not allow anyone to exploit the difficulties they are experiencing in order to support interests in favour of breaking up the euro area, as some people are systematically trying to do.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE). – (PT) Mr President, I should like to ask for your attention, basically so as to welcome the results of the Council. This is not because the measures are ideal, but because they are possible. There is no doubt that we have now gone much further and we can be more optimistic than we were three months ago or six months ago. Many Member States have been making enormous efforts to stabilise and consolidate their public finances, and these efforts have only been made in some of them at the European Union’s behest. These efforts are crucial if they are to be able to recover their credibility on the international markets and crucial if they are, in time, to be able to return to growth.

With these guarantees that the Member States – in particular, Portugal – have been giving on fiscal consolidation, or budgetary consolidation, I am convinced that, with the new treaty signed between the 25, we will be in a position to relaunch growth in earnest with the European Council’s next steps. It is only with this trust that is being built up, little by little, that this growth can be created.

That is why I would say this: it is important for those who are richer to feel solidarity for those who are poorer, but the poor must also understand the other point of view, by giving these guarantees.

  Libor Rouček (S&D). - (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as you know, the Czech Republic, under the leadership of a eurosceptic conservative government and a europhobic President, did not sign the fiscal compact. As a Czech, I have to say that this is an error. The Czech Republic is located at the heart of Europe, not only geographically but also politically, and it is therefore in its vital, security, political and economic interests to take an active and full part in European integration, including, of course, monetary and fiscal integration. This is an opinion, it is the position of Czech social democrats, and it is also the opinion of the majority of Czech society, which, as you know, came out clearly in favour of European integration in a referendum. The fiscal compact is no panacea, of course. As my fellow Members have said, we want to see more jobs, more investment and more social policy here, but fiscal responsibility is the foundation.

  Marietta Giannakou (PPE). – (EL) Mr President, the Council decisions illustrate that progress has been made and that we are already part of the way there. Of course there are often disagreements. We all want less tension, but there are no easy, magic formulae. Decisions need to be taken both at European level and within the Member States.

Structural changes will help, especially in countries such as mine. It is the only way to address its current crisis and generate hope for growth. The fiscal compact, the European Semester and decisions on increasing employment can, and must, guide us forward.

Europe has an historic awareness of the interests of its citizens and will not allow the economic crisis to overpower it in the long term. The ideological content of our common struggle and the efforts to generate growth may give hope to the young people of Europe. What is important is that sacrifices must bear fruit.

I would like to point out that the Greek people are willing to make such huge sacrifices because they are not prepared to jeopardise their membership of the European Union and the euro area, whatever various ‘Cassandras’ may claim.

  Ana Gomes (S&D). – (PT) Mr President, the fiscal compact signed a few days ago illustrates that growth and jobs continue to be glaringly ignored by Europe’s leaders. If small and medium-sized enterprises are key for growth and employment, and youth employment in particular, as President Barroso has stressed, is it not scandalous that – particularly in countries suffering bailout and recessive austerity, like mine – they are being choked by a lack of credit from banks that are going to the European Central Bank for liquidity at 1% but which, immorally, continue to refuse them finance or to grant it only in exchange for exorbitant interest rates?

How too, despite President Barroso having acknowledged here that more than EUR 1 trillion in investment is lost to the European economy from tax evasion, can the passiveness of our governments and the Commission in response to it be explained?

The fiscal compact does not include a single line on tax harmonisation, on controlling off-shore accounts, on combating fiscal dumping between the Member States or even on the financial transaction tax, which, as well as representing additional resources for investment, would be a start on controlling financial transactions in the European Union. Are we surprised that young Europeans are being obliged to leave the European Union? In Portugal, where the unemployment rate exceeds 35%, the government is accepting collective incapability and incompetence, and is encouraging them to emigrate. Are they not dying of shame?

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Corien Wortmann-Kool (PPE). – (NL) Mr President, it seems we have reached a turning point. The markets are calming down and confidence in the euro area appears to be being restored, as President Van Rompuy rightly said here. We are, thereby, fulfilling an important prerequisite for returning to the road of national economic growth and, also, for creating anew an investment climate that inspires confidence. Let us face it, companies are keeping a lot of their money in the bank. Private investors are currently afraid to invest but, as confidence is restored, that money will then be able to be invested to boost further economic growth. However, everything will depend on the question of whether or not we actually deliver cash on the nail.

President Van Rompuy spoke about our needing a growth strategy. However, we already have a Europe 2020 strategy. We must also start implementing it. And that will only work if we first search our own hearts. It does not help things much when the Commission points the finger at the Council, the Council at Parliament, and Parliament at the Member States. One excellent example of this which I have found is the excellent letter from the twelve Heads of Government, which points the finger at the European Commission and waxes lyrical about what the European Commission ought to start doing.

However, if those Heads of Government themselves put some effort into preventing tax evasion for once, then it would be possible for the Europe 2020 strategy to be implemented with its own budget. That would mean sparing education from cuts, for example, while still promoting efficiency in the public sector. If we do what we have promised, then we will be able to extricate ourselves from the crisis.

  Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the words of the President of the Commission and of the President of the Council this morning are even more worrying than the conclusions of the Commission. Only one issue is being pushed, a single objective, which is financial stability and the actions necessary to guarantee it.

I am certainly not going to undervalue the importance of this directive. However, it is now completely obvious that without growth, the conditions of millions of people in Europe are set to get worse. Furthermore, the undervaluation of the social effects of the recession in all of our economies is, as I was saying, really surprising and worrying. Without investments and without this trend being reversed, we risk huge social problems over the coming months. Therefore, the Eurobonds and the tax on financial transactions are not just any old instruments: they are the only path we can take to achieve a speedy change of fortunes and give hope to millions of people.

  Gunnar Hökmark (PPE). – Mr President, if the problem of the European economy were that our public spending is too low and our deficits too small, we would have no problems at all. I want to say this in response to the debate here, as it sounds as if we could solve our problems by increasing public spending and increasing the deficits, thereby achieving social cohesion and economic growth.

We have seen the contrary: that uncontrolled public spending and big deficits are undermining social security and hindering growth, and creating the austerity of increasing interest rates. That is the reality, and those who believe that increased public spending is the solution to our problems should just look around and take a look at our problems.

On the other hand, what we need to do is to create a new way of stimulating the economy. I think it is important for the Commission to understand that the way to social cohesion and social security does not run parallel to the policy for economic growth. Economic growth and new jobs are the key issue in order to achieve social development in Europe that we can all be satisfied with. That is why I would like to urge the Commission to proceed with the reforms for the internal market, for competitiveness in the Member States, and for making the European Union the biggest market in the world.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, I have participated with eager interest in this morning’s debate on the conclusions of the Council meeting, and I would like to tell you that it is certainly obvious that we not only need fiscal stability but also growth. However, in order to achieve growth, we need a definite investment plan, we need to find the sources and identify them, along with the sectors offering the potential for growth and employment. Given that a huge number of citizens, especially young people and women, need jobs, we also need to create these jobs. There is just one problem I have with this: if there are sources available through the Savings Directive mentioned by Mr Barroso, why is this directive still being blocked inside the Council, and, if we are talking about growth, employment and social policies, why is the Maternity Leave Directive still being blocked by the Council?

I would also like to stress again that I hope that Romania and Bulgaria will join Schengen in September.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE). – Mr President, the message of today’s meeting could well be ‘now it is implementation time’. It is time for the Member States to effectively implement the commitments made to the European Council.

The biggest problem still seems to be the aftermath of the Council meetings. While following strict financial discipline, it is crucial that new investments should be made to build an efficient knowledge-based economy, to reduce administrative burdens for SMEs, and to boost youth employment. The key issue is to make decisive use of the basic instrument on which the European Community is based: the single market.

Today, President Barroso used the well-known politically correct term: deepening of the single market. I support Joseph Daul, who today called for the 20th anniversary of the single market to be marked by completing it on the basis of a precise timetable proposed by the Commission.

Now is the time finally to overcome hesitation and caution about fully implementing the single market. It is time to end the unofficial protectionism which is, in fact, a hard reality. This attitude has been undermining the EU’s innate potential for growth and for political and economic credibility.

  Roberto Gualtieri (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the satisfaction of having escaped danger is understandable, but it should not make us forget the mistakes and the delays of recent years, not to mention the decisive role played by the European Central Bank (ECB) and by the new Italian Government. Most importantly, our satisfaction should not stop us facing up to the enormous structural problem that the policies of recent months have not resolved.

The strategy of salary deflation brought in by austerity policies as an alternative to devaluation is not economically or socially sustainable, nor is it universally accepted in political terms. We should leave the caricatures behind. Nobody here is proposing deficit spending. We do think, however, that it is possible to combine national fiscal responsibility with a revitalisation of investment and demand; it is possible with a more even distribution of wealth; it is possible if we confront macro-economic imbalances; it is possible through large-scale EU investment; it is possible if we set up shared management of debts through a debt redemption fund.

The Community method offers the instruments for realising these objectives, but we need a change in political direction which, between the elections in France and the European elections of 2014, will start a new cycle and see the consolidation of a different strategy and of truly European economic governance.

  Othmar Karas (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the summit was not dramatic. It was strikingly calm. It has been described as being better than previous meetings. Perhaps a more serious approach and less stage management would do us good. We also need fewer accusations and criticisms and more actions and positive results. It was also beneficial that no advance meeting was held between Ms Merkel and Mr Sarkozy. Instead, everyone focused on the summit, rather than imposing requirements on the other participants.

We should spend less time criticising one another and more time taking action. We now have the Single Market Act and we must implement it in the Member States. We have the Small Business Act which must also be implemented. We have the Europe 2020 strategy which must be put into practice. We have the SME test which must be carried out so that we can draw the necessary conclusions. The Commission is proposing the use of own resources. I am calling on the Member States to accept this offer, so that the Commission and the European institutions are not in the position of being dependent, but instead have more freedom to act in the political arena and more credibility. We know that more funding will be available for the European Stability Mechanism (ESM). We must not postpone our decisions. We must make them now. Kosovo is not just a problem for Serbia. The five Member States of the EU which are refusing to recognise Kosovo must finally do so. We need more action and less criticism.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Zofija Mazej Kukovič (PPE). – (SL) Mr President, the Council’s conclusions are aimed at both making savings and growth. However, with five and a half million young people unemployed, it is essential to encourage, educate and train young people to take risks, risks which are also related to entrepreneurship.

Everything may start with an idea, but the same idea without implementation, or without the courage to implement it, does not mean much. Centres of learning therefore need to put more emphasis on this, on a culture of entrepreneurship, education, training for young people, so they dare to be self-employed, so they dare to take risks.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). – (HU) Mr President, this has been the first time for two years that the European Council was not occupied with putting out fires; however, the flames have not yet died down. Europe is not out of harm’s way just yet, because without economic growth, we will be unable to break free from our debt spiral. A wide range of topics were discussed, including the development of the internal market and the urgent introduction of Eurobonds; however, I am convinced that, in addition, we also need a comprehensive EU growth programme and an EU development package to promote job creation. On the other hand, we are faced with a fundamental structural problem as regards the functioning of the euro. It has become apparent that, as a common currency, the euro is incapable of handling the economies of countries at different levels of competitiveness. The economic difficulties of Greece, Ireland, Spain and Portugal, and their being on the verge of state bankruptcy, are not just the fault of their respective governments but also an indication of the common failure of the euro. The euro must therefore undergo fundamental reform.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, on the subject of the Schengen issue, I think that the continued opposition shown by the Netherlands to the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the Schengen area is an abuse which runs counter to the European Union’s long-term principles and objectives. The stance adopted by the Netherlands has led to the postponement of the decision on the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the Schengen area. It has highlighted once again that, although all Member States have equal responsibilities, they do not all enjoy the same benefits.

Colleagues, the populist ambitions of some leaders and parties on the European political scene only serve to weaken the EU’s power and reduce the credibility of politicians at European level. Given that all the conditions for accession have been met, I take this opportunity to call for all responsible institutions to identify and implement all the necessary measures contributing to the enlargement of the Schengen area.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, on several occasions, I have taken part in the debate on the European Council conclusions in order to address aspects that have nothing to do with the governance of the euro area but rather with the fundamental truths and raison d’être of the EU, which is a community in law.

I say this once again, in relation precisely to the conclusions relating to the area of freedom, security and justice, to free movement of persons and the enlargement of the Schengen area. In June, this Parliament approved the extension of the Schengen area to include Romania and Bulgaria which, in accordance with their accession treaties of 2005, had to fulfil certain requirements. The Council considered that Romania and Bulgaria fulfil those requirements but, yet again, has postponed its decision and referred it to a decision of the Justice and Home Affairs Council at a meeting that will take place in September 2012.

Parliament can only hope that that meeting actually gives rise to the fulfilment of an undertaking with Romania and Bulgaria, which have met their criteria for gaining access to the Schengen area, and that the EU works to strengthen the Schengen area. Naturally, the statements that we have heard in the French election campaign do not contribute in that direction, statements which threaten the re-establishment of internal borders within the EU and contribute to mistrust and ill feeling among Europeans, the opposite way from the way we should be going.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). – Mr President, the Treaty on Fiscal Discipline is not concerned with the well-being of its signatories, but with the well-being of the euro and, of course, the project. This so-called ‘treaty’ seeks to impose a fiscal and monetary straitjacket that takes away the sovereignty of voters in Member States and the eurozone. It addresses the problem of sovereign debt, but with inflexible diktats, rather than with practical solutions. Its cure for economic undernourishment is to put the countries of the south on a starvation diet of economic austerity that is reducing incomes and raising unemployment and will make balancing the budget even more difficult. With an overvalued currency, employment is the only thing they can export.

The ailing economies of the south need to leave the eurozone, revert to their own currencies and devalue. That will enable them to enjoy export-led expansion. They also need to reflate their economies by government-directed investment financed by quantitative easing and not borrowing. This would not, of course, be possible within the eurozone.

End of the catch-the-eye procedure

  Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, I know that many of the questions have already been answered by our President so, if you will allow me, I will just focus on the issues which have been most frequently mentioned by the honourable Members, particularly jobs, growth and where to find investment in order to support policies in both these areas.

But first, I would like to assure the honourable Members of this House that unemployment, and especially youth unemployment, is one of the five key priorities on which we would like the whole European Union to focus this year. This was the conclusion of the Annual Growth Survey. This is one of the priorities for the European Semester where we, of course, would expect this priority to feature very highly in the national reform programmes of each and every Member State because we are fully aware of how painful this is for our citizens and how difficult it is for our economies not to have enough high-quality jobs.

What the Commission will do further is that already in April, we will be putting forward an employment policy package. We are doing our best to help the EU as such and our Member States to improve the functioning of the labour market and to create better conditions for the creation of jobs. We would like to focus on the possibilities across the whole economy, but we would also like to be even more concentrated in the areas and sectors where we see a big potential for the new jobs, such as health care, white sector, information, communications technologies and the ICT sector as such.

We are also going to tackle the problems and the obstacles which still hamper the free movement of labour and labour mobility within the European Union. In particular, we would like to assist the young people who are witnessing unprecedented pressure on the labour market. We are absolutely convinced that we cannot afford to have 7.5 million young people who are not employed and not in education or in training. We therefore deployed eight action teams from the Commission which have already come back from the Member States with concrete ideas. We are going to implement them together with the Member States and the social partners in these countries.

Of course we support youth job guarantees. We would like every young European to have a chance to get – within a very short period of time after completing his or her studies – either a job or to have the possibility of continuing their education or, if there is not a particular job available, to work towards requalification or get into retraining so we can use the potential of our young generation in the European Union. To do that, we are also going to improve the tools which would help young people to seek jobs. We are going to improve and introduce the new scheme, ‘Your first EURES job’, which should help young people in finding opportunities on the labour market.

Then, of course, the question is where to find the investment and where to find the money to be invested in the economy, especially in this time of austerity where budget consolidation is a very clear priority. We would not like to repeat the dramatic events we have gone through in the last two years. With regard to the creation of new jobs and employment, we believe that we still can do much better with the money which is available from EU funds. To date, we have EUR 22 billion in the European Social Fund and EUR 62 billion in the Structural and Cohesion Funds which have not yet been spent. We want to help the Member States to have another look at spending priorities – how they can reprogramme them and use them for the active labour policy so we can create new jobs, for young people in particular, but, of course, for every European.

Several ideas have been mentioned as to where we can generate more income and more investments. I think that we have complete agreement on them because the Commission is very much in favour of the introduction of a financial transaction tax. It was a proposal which we made and we are working very hard with the Member States to convince them because, as you know, we need unanimity on this issue.

We are advancing our work on project bonds because our simulations show very promising results. We can actually use EUR 230 million from the EU budget and leverage it, together with the EIB, to EUR 700 million. This would end up, raising the money on the private market, with the sum of EUR 3.5 billion. This is money we can spend on infrastructure, on ICT and on projects which generate a lot of employment and which improve the overall competitiveness of the European Union.

You know that we support own resources and we make this point at every single negotiation meeting which takes place with Member States. You know – because you are getting the information from your negotiators – that this discussion is difficult but we are truly convinced that, if we want to have a more transparent budget and less drama when we are negotiating multiannual financial frameworks (MFF), we need solid own resources for the EU budget.

I would say one more thing even. I think that, if we look at investment policy, one of the best investment tools we have in the EU is the EU budget. Where in the world would you find a budget where 94% of the budget goes back to the Member States with the high value-added proposals supporting the programmes and the policies which are actually increasing competitiveness and cohesion among the Member States? This is how we have to look at the EU budget and this is what I am sometimes missing when we are discussing the EU budget and the MFF with Member States.

Thank you very much for your support for the Single Market Act and for your willingness to consider the possibility of fast-tracking some of our proposals, because we believe that by unlocking the single market potential, we can create a lot of new jobs and, indeed, new growth.

Finally, regarding Romania and Bulgaria and Schengen, you know very well that the Commission’s position is very clear. We are convinced that Bulgaria and Romania have fulfilled all the conditions necessary to join Schengen and we believe that both countries should already be members of Schengen.

  President. – The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I agree with my colleagues who said previously that, at the European Council meeting, we missed an opportunity for a detailed discussion and specific agreements on increasing the social aspect in all areas of EU policy, particularly growth of the Member States’ economies. I believe that fiscal consolidation, greater coordination of the Member States’ economies and tighter financial discipline are essential measures for ensuring that we can properly rebalance our economies and steer them in the right direction. However, looking at the current state of the EU, it is becoming quite clear that budgetary discipline and severe austerity measures on their own will not enable us to achieve the economic growth expected. Today in Europe, unemployment among people of working age is increasing massively, the situation with regard to youth unemployment is particularly bad, business enterprises, especially small and medium-sized, are facing difficult times and all of this only delays the economic recovery of individual Member States and the EU as a whole. In 2012, the European Council endorsed the five important priorities for growth in employment and much greater efforts will be required to achieve these. I believe that it is very important for the Member States to establish specific and measurable commitments in their national reform programmes and the Commission should monitor the implementation of these commitments more closely.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The last European Council was marked by the signing of the so-called ‘fiscal compact’, now renamed the ‘International Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union’, despite its being in breach of the European Union’s own rules. The rules provided for in this ‘treaty’ represent the institutionalisation of the same policies that led to the tragic social situation that we are currently experiencing, with a dizzying increase in unemployment, reduced wages – and, therefore, increased exploitation – and the dismantling of the social functions of the state. In truth, these are not new political and ideological guidelines. What we do have before us is the implementation of the old guidelines, which have been behind Europe’s entire process of capitalist integration, with toughened-up content and better means for making them work. Behind the technocratic language and words about ‘budgetary consolidation’ is hidden the reality of condemning thousands of families to poverty and despair. The only result of the path that this Council meeting has set out again is the deepening of the economic crisis in the EU Member States – which is clearly the situation, as established by the European Commission’s own figures, which confirm the economic recession in the euro area – and further deterioration of the social crisis that the unemployment figures published yesterday eloquently illustrate.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), in writing. – (HU) At the last summit, the majority of Member States signed the budgetary pact intended to ensure the stability and an even closer coordination of the economic and monetary union. This not only marks the conclusion of another intergovernmental agreement but also the end of an immensely long process to which the European Parliament contributed with exceptional support and expertise. However, it is essential that besides common economic policy regulation, which definitely provides a clear background for Member State budgetary policies, the European Union should, in future, evaluate Member State efforts towards common economic governance in a transparent manner, using quantitative criteria laid down in the Stability and Growth Pact. The Council conclusions, too, state that budgetary consolidation must be implemented in light of the Member States’ specific circumstances, but in a differentiated manner. It is therefore unacceptable for the performance of certain Member States to be unjustly evaluated on the basis of subjective criteria, while failing to recognise that in the medium and long term, the focus of economic policy trends in the Member State in question has always been to avoid austerity measures and to pursue commonly established goals, that is, reduce the budget deficit and gradually curb sovereign debt. If we operate the economic policy system that we have successfully established in an irresponsible manner by unduly discriminating between Member States and continuously inciting tensions, we jeopardise the credibility of the entire European institutional system and the sustainability of common economic governance.

  Zita Gurmai (S&D), in writing. – I am particularly worried after the signature of the fiscal compact during the last European Council. We, Socialists and Democrats, have been defending from the start balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility, but this cannot be the only reaction to the dreadful crisis Europe is facing. While we witness every day the dramatic social consequences of measures focused exclusively on austerity, we urgently need concrete measures to restore growth and tackle unemployment. I would like to emphasise the issue of youth unemployment, which is now reaching an average rate of more than 22% in Europe. This is unacceptable. That is why the Party of European Socialists, with the support of the S&D Group, has launched a campaign to tackle youth unemployment, calling for binding measures and sufficient financial support to ensure the access of young people to quality jobs. Therefore, I strongly hope that the Commission and the Member States will take into consideration our demand to introduce a Youth Guarantee that would prevent any young European from being without a job or training for more than four months. How can we prepare the future of Europe if we do not do everything we can to ensure a decent future for our children?

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE) , in writing. – (PL) The last European Council meeting apparently ended in success. Despite the opposition of two Member States, the Council succeeded in signing the fiscal compact, which is to be an important element of the economic stability of European countries. The fiscal compact is very often criticised as a solution which is not only overdue, but also insufficient. Even though the provisions of the agreement are not perfect, it has allowed continued stabilisation of markets and calmed the mood among investors. The principal task facing us today is the implementation of the compact’s provisions and compliance with the principle of community which we defend so vigorously. In addition, it is important how the provisions of Article 12 are implemented or, in other words, whether the voice of signatory countries outside the euro area will, in fact, be heard during Euro Group summits. I would also give a cautious welcome to the decision by members of the euro area to mobilise part of the funding from the second Greek aid package for ongoing expenditure and to launch a process to reduce the Greek debt. Unfortunately, it is a big problem that many measures taken to salvage the Greek economy do not have the support of most of society. We must not forget that prudential measures alone are insufficient and, sooner or later, Greece will have to focus on investments to stimulate growth and employment.

  Sandra Kalniete (PPE) , in writing. – (LV) I welcome the intergovernmental agreement on fiscal discipline concluded by 25 of the European Union’s Member States. In the long term, this agreement can stabilise European monetary union and strengthen economic governance. I hope that the Member States participating in the agreement will, as soon as possible, ratify it and implement it in formulating their budgets. Only in this way will we be able to restore the confidence of the international financial markets in the European Union and secure the preconditions for economic growth and new jobs. The agreement complements the Stability and Growth Pact, the ‘six-pack’ of EU economic governance adopted last year, which includes five regulations and one directive, and the recently concluded agreement on the establishment of a European Stability Mechanism. Together with the upcoming ‘two-pack’, namely, the regulations which will lay down monitoring of the formulation of the euro area Member States’ budgets, this will really strengthen economic governance in Europe.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I am pleased that the conclusions of the Council mentioned the request for the decision to be taken in the JHA Council in September on the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the Schengen area. It is better than nothing. A decision would normally have been requested in the following JHA Council to stop any unjustified delay that lacks legal arguments.

I believe that the subject of Schengen has become a matter of concern for the EU in general, and not just for Romania and Bulgaria. The introduction of temporary border controls by Denmark and France, the intention of the Netherlands to install cameras at its borders, the discussions on the legal basis for the regulation on the Schengen evaluation and the recent statements made by France are exerting unjustified pressure on one of the EU’s most positive achievements: the free movement of persons. This is why I call on the Council to focus a huge amount of attention while dealing with this topic in the very near future.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) With regard to the strategy for the southern neighbourhood, it is naïve to believe that democracies based on the European model will emerge in North Africa. The overwhelming victory of Islamist parties in the elections in Egypt and Tunisia shows that these countries, and probably Libya too, see their future not in the European Convention on Human Rights, but in Sharia law. Instead of considering putting additional burdens on the EU Member States in the form of North African debt relief, we must link EU subsidies to increased protection for religious minorities and mandatory repatriation of illegal immigrants. The EU itself does not always take democracy entirely seriously. For example, in democratic terms, it is right that the Irish people will have the opportunity to vote on the EU fiscal compact, but Brussels will not accept a ‘no’ vote. The signing of the so-called fiscal compact is another step towards a centralist federal European state. In the current crisis, Europe does not need a financial governing council in Brussels to supervise the euro countries. A total reform of the poorly designed monetary union would be much more useful. If restoring normal lending conditions is the objective, then the Basel III requirements must definitely be considered. Most importantly, we also need to put in place a framework for organised state bankruptcy in Greece, instead of wasting billions on useless rescue packages and risking years of stagnation in the euro area as a result.

  Ioan Mircea Paşcu (S&D), in writing. – It seems that both the Council and the Commission are taking the fact that, for the first time, this Council was not held in response to a crisis as a sign that the crisis had started to be tamed; we only need more time ... . That time, however, might instead bring more xenophobia and more protectionism, as the electoral campaign in France is clearly demonstrating. My colleague, Hannes Swoboda, has asked a rhetorical question: what if we all had to show our passport once again to enter France? Well, as a Romanian MEP, I have to do this every time I come to Strasbourg, and not just to board a plane, as my colleague Mr Gollnisch pointed out, but to be allowed to enter the country which is making me attend the part-sessions here, in Strasbourg, instead of Brussels. And, on top of that, sometimes I have to subject myself to a search without a warrant instead of a normal airport check, and this only because my country is kept out of Schengen arbitrarily. Yes, we need tough measures to get out of the crisis, but not at the expense of what we have achieved with such effort until now.

  Adrian Severin (NI), in writing. – (RO) The European Council has again blocked Romania’s and Bulgaria’s accession to the Schengen area. It has apparently been blocked due to the veto from the Netherlands. The reality is that other Member States are also behind this opposition, with their leaders caught up in nationalist, populist rhetoric. Against the background of the global economic crisis, the threat of Europe’s renationalisation is looming. Sacrificing the free movement of persons on the pretext that this would safeguard the security and cultural purity of Europe’s nations reflects the eurosceptic trend currently doing the rounds in the electoral campaign in France. While the French rejected the Constitutional Treaty by means of a referendum focused on debating national issues, the current presidential elections are raising controversy over European issues. This would be welcome if the tone adopted were not anti-European. Mr Hollande is speaking out against European economic governance initiated through the fiscal pact. Mr Sarkozy is calling for ‘political governance’ of the Schengen area. A ‘powerful France’ ought to define the principles of this governance, allowing ‘legitimate’ governments, unlike the European Commission, to impose sanctions on states which are not robust enough in tackling illegal immigration. The real problem is not how to defend the EU’s external borders, but the inconsistency of the EU’s migration policy. There is also the need to come up with an EU solution for guaranteeing the application of the principle of solidarity and frank cooperation between EU Member States, which is enshrined in the treaties but which has become a dead letter.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) What basic conclusion can be drawn from the long struggle with the crisis and the attempts to achieve economic growth and increase employment? The measures which are taken, although relevant and moving in the right direction, are always overdue and lack sufficient depth. Overcoming the crisis will be possible only through structural reforms implemented comprehensively and quickly, with, of course, adequate preparation. It is, however, difficult to combat a crisis and introduce serious reforms when the politicians in power are guided principally by the interests of their own parties in the upcoming election campaigns.

We devote too much time to the issues of division of authority and separation of powers in the euro area when, in reality, the real issue at stake is maintaining the dominance of some EU Member States and protecting the interests of those countries and their banks. Economic policy coordination was possible under the previous legislation, for example, as per the provisions of the Stability and Growth Pact, but there was a lack of political will and the corresponding determination. The ‘six-pack’ that has been adopted must, in order to be fully effective, be strengthened by means of the ‘two-pack’. What steps need to be taken next? Is the fiscal compact sufficient?

There are still no procedures for a country to exit the euro area or for it to be excluded from the euro area by the other countries in the euro area if this country fails to act in accordance with the agreements or to implement certain reforms. It is good that the European Central Bank, as the primary financial institution of the euro area, has taken action, and Commissioner Barnier does an exceptionally good job of strengthening the single market.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Promoting growth and jobs are currently two key objectives for the European Union. To this end, we are counting on increased stability in the euro area and on serious efforts and determination on the part of the various Member States and institutions. The recently signed fiscal compact will have to provide proofs of discipline and the European Parliament is now counting on the Commission, as Guardian of the Treaties. The various instruments should be implemented and new measures, provided for in a new legislative package on the single market, will naturally contribute to its growth and, consequently, to the promotion of employment.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The main highlight of the European Council held on 1-2 March 2012 was the signing of the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance within the Economic and Monetary Union. However, the implementation of the EU’s economic strategy requires decisive measures to be taken to stimulate growth and create jobs.

The European Council approved the five priorities for 2012, identified in the Annual Growth Survey conducted by the Commission: pursuing differentiated and growth-friendly fiscal consolidation, restoring normal lending to the economy, promoting growth and competitiveness, tackling unemployment and the social consequences of the crisis, and modernising public administration. However, I think that additional efforts are required at EU level to achieve the single market and, in particular, to complete the digital single market by 2015. I should stress the important contribution made by industry to economic growth, competitiveness, exports and job creation in Europe, boosting productivity and innovation.

I welcome the European Council’s decision to grant Serbia candidate country status. Given that the European Commission has acknowledged on several occasions that Romania and Bulgaria have fulfilled the technical criteria for joining the Schengen area, I call on the Council to adopt a decision to this effect as soon as possible.

  Kristian Vigenin (S&D), in writing. – (BG) The decision made by the European Council to grant Serbia the status of an EU candidate country is deserved recognition for the reforms which have been carried out in that country. The Serbian authorities staunchly support its European path and are fulfilling their commitments and promises, in spite of the difficult political and economic situation.

This decision confirms the attention which the EU is focusing on continuing the enlargement process, in spite of the economic problems, debt crisis and pressure on the single currency. Set in the context of the progress being made by the majority of countries in the region along the path towards EU integration, this gesture towards Serbia proves the EU’s lasting commitment to the Western Balkans, assumed in 2003.

Granting candidate country status is also a timely and clear sign of support for the pro-European political forces in Serbia, especially in view of the forthcoming parliamentary elections in early May and the real danger of an upsurge from nationalist and populist parties which could again cast doubt over the country’s European perspective.

The next and perhaps most important test for Serbia will be the start of membership negotiations, which will virtually make its integration into the EU irreversible. The path is clear, but there is still a great deal of work ahead in terms of fulfilling the agreements that have been reached, continuing the reforms and increasing regional cooperation. The Serbian people can count on the support of the European Parliament.