Proposition 53K1715

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 2 novembre 2010 relative à la participation de l'Etat belge dans la société anonyme "European Financial Stability Facility" et à l'octroi de la garantie de l'Etat aux instruments financiers émis par cette société.

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V Leterme Ⅱ

Submission date

Aug. 29, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

European Central Bank euro euro area EU financial instrument financial instrument monetary crisis short-term monetary support public borrowing

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP ∉ Open Vld N-VA MR

Voted to reject

LDD VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Georges Gilkinet (Ecolo) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Sept. 13, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Since the discussions have largely exceeded the issue addressed in the draft, I propose to refer to my written report.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, it may not be bad to stop at the beginning of my presentation on what we are going to do, in particular giving the European Financial Stability Facility the opportunity to better intervene in the markets when necessary.

It is burning on the financial markets in Europe. When it burns, it must be blown. Therefore, the N-VA will ultimately also support the present bill, but not without expressing any comments, warnings or concerns regarding the future.

First, we have a few comments on the form.

It is once again clear and distinctive that the Parliament is following the facts in the present matter. At the time we met in the committee on the present proposal, the decision had already been taken. We stood with our back against the wall. There was no possibility to make any further adjustments. In this case, we are therefore, in fact, in any case, faced with an accomplished fact, though a accomplished fact which is absolutely necessary for the financial situation in Europe.

However, a much more important point is one where I would like to remain a little longer. That is, colleagues, the fact that, in our opinion, Europe absolutely lacks a chance in this regard.

We are absolutely convinced that expanding the Fund in the short term would be irresponsible, but we are also convinced that we must stand up to the risk that the Member States are still in sound financial condition today. Failing to look at the risks that these Member States face and failing to closely monitor the budgetary trade and changes of the Member States receiving support, as well as of the countries in the euro area that can still be called healthy or healthy today, is also irresponsible.

The N-VA is convinced that the best crisis management and the best defence that one can have against financial players who would have it on us or on parts of the euro zone is a rigorous and orthodox fiscal policy.

The simple expansion of the capabilities and the amount of money in the support fund is in fact the ease solution and we do not think it can work without also a careful follow-up of the European recommendations for budgets in the Member States in difficulty as well as in the Member States that are still in healthy condition today.

In that sense, I would also like to refer to the question of Dutch Prime Minister Rutte, who absolutely insists on a accountability mechanism and even a sanctioning mechanism for euro area countries that put aside Europe’s budgetary recommendations.

A second missed opportunity for Europe – which no one can ignore – is the lack of unambiguous communication. The day after the announcement of the measures taken, the July 21 statement, the markets reacted in the opposite direction than could be expected. Could that expectation have been fulfilled? Per ⁇ , if one had not implicitly acknowledged that the end of the euro had been talked about, if, for example, Germany had not rolled with the muscle balls, and if one had not launched semi-finished proposals that were not ready for implementation.

The credibility of the measures taken determines how the financial markets will respond to them.

Even today we see in the press that in various countries it is believed that an accompanied bankruptcy of Greece must be possible. This type of communication is not of the kind to restore confidence in the markets.

In addition to these missed opportunities for Europe, I would also like to refer to the voluntarism with which Belgium supports the measures. Let’s say, by approving this law later, we commit to interventions and guarantees in the amount of 34.5 billion euros.

EUR 34.5 billion is 10% of our gross domestic product. We will commit to 10% of what we all value together in this country, again every year.

Other countries have asked for guarantees, but we did not. There may also be a missed opportunity for Belgium. After all, it seems noble and generous to say that we will soon enter into an emergency plan for Greece, and who knows which countries will follow. For ourselves, however, it is important to be silent at the risk we are taking with it. 10% of what we value annually in Belgium, we put in the scale. Belgium will be responsible for 6% of EU interventions. That is not mine.

We also asked questions to the Minister of Finance. Unfortunately, we have not received an adequate answer to the question of how the risk is assessed today. The media is talking about Greece’s bankruptcy, an accompanied bankruptcy, a concordate, or whatever one wants to call it. In this case, the funds we guarantee will be taxable. Today’s guarantee will not be a net expenditure and will cost us nothing. However, there is a risk – and it is becoming increasingly real – that Belgium will also be effectively addressed on its contribution to the guarantees.

I come to my conclusion. As previously stated, if it burns, it must be blown. We therefore call for an end at European level to the incitement of fires, on the one hand through various forms of communication, but on the other hand through the provision of extinguishing agents by approving this bill today. In addition, we ask the Parliament and the Government to work out a financial stress test of the Belgian finances, including the safeguards we wish to apply. It shouldn’t be that investors tomorrow find that Belgium is “overlooking” in this, in addition to the already existing high debt, and that after a few weeks they say that it becomes a risk for them because the securities rise at the moment that the money becomes more expensive for them, which all is directly felt in the budget and in the wallet.

We also call for urgent work at European level on a sanctioning mechanism in relation to the implementation of the European recommendations and the European Stability Conditions. Belgium can also take the lead here.

Finally this. I think we in this Parliament should seriously consider setting up a think tank or a working group in order to take the lead – also as a Belgian – in thinking about a new structure of financial powers in Europe. If we can learn one lesson from the last one-and-a-half month, it is that we realize that today we do not know exactly where we will go and that we must hope that the measures we take will produce effect. Per ⁇ the Parliament can think about it and try to work out a direction.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Ministers, dear colleagues, we are happy, on behalf of the Socialist Group, to contribute to sending this clear signal with the Belgian Parliament: the Belgian Parliament shows that it is capable of bringing together its members quickly, when necessary, to make the decisions that the situation imposes. This is the case in terms of finance, as it has been in the international crises we have experienced in recent weeks.

The international financial situation is dramatic. I will briefly trace the history: how did we get there? This debate began in the early 1980s, on the occasion of deregulation promoted by a Republican American president, followed by a British prime minister, which caused worldwide financial euphoria. There are two key words: privatization and deregulation.

At that time, which some here in this assembly have known, one felt somewhat "ringard" when one defended the public power against the extraordinary rise in strength of the will to give to the private a all-power at the international level. We wanted to impose rules on a capitalism that, after growing up for a few years, would go crazy.

The first technological crisis of the early 2000s was not enough. It should serve as an example, as an alarm signal. This was not the case. Again, the crisis broke out dramatically in the fall of 2008. Today, three years later, we are on the brink of the international economic recession.

Greece, Ireland, Spain, Italy are so many countries that are going through painful times. The European countries have not escaped the financial and economic crises we have been experiencing since 2008. No European country has escaped the heavy consequences of a new crisis, a debt crisis this time caused by the bailout of banks.

But for Greece, the time is dramatic. While some speak of a pure and simple bankruptcy of this state, it is urgent for Europe to react. Let’s take account, let’s measure the impact of a possible bankruptcy of a state! This makes no sense! Per ⁇ this is the time to remember that the doctrine founding democracies is based on the existence of sovereign states, stable states, indestructible except by violence.

It is also the time to recall all the efforts of our states that were based on the notion, just three years ago, of too big to fail, to avoid the “systemic risk” of banks! We Democrats should accept that the systemic risk extends to sovereign states that would be allowed to go bankrupt. For us socialists and for us Democrats, this is unacceptable!

The European Union has a duty of solidarity with its Member States. For us, it is time for it to become a political and socio-economic space as such.

So, others are emitting the idea of a exit of Greece from the European space. We say no. What a dramatic failure that would be! What would the word “Union” of our European Union still mean after that? And what a failure for all those who have tried, for decades, to build Europe!

It seems that some also forget that in Greece there are men and women who have not asked for anything, who have not made a mistake and who suffer the social consequences of what is happening.

What is shocking in these crises is the blind austerity that is presented as a solution. A blind austerity that strikes the elderly, students, civil servants, self-employed, employees, all generations. And who trains what? Economic growth is slowing down, thus closing down any future.

Therefore, some like to highlight the mismanagement of these states and almost imply that they only have "what they deserve", that they only have to get out of it on their own. This would mean forgetting European solidarity. It would then be criminal for the whole of Europe: it would not resist. Finally, it would make rating agencies and big speculators the absolute masters of the world.

For our group, it is out of question to allow this to happen.

I want to say “relax”. Read the interventions on virtually all banks the day after the financial crisis. We heard these words: “Never again this!”, “We will put the international finance at hand”, “We will regulate”, “We will tackle harmful speculation.” The causes of evil were clearly established, especially in this Parliament, the remedies too and solemn commitments were made.

What remains of it today?

Rating agencies crush sovereign countries, to the United States of America affected from the inside. A public, independent, European rating agency? We all wanted it. Nothing is! Divide the banks according to their goals. Nothing is! Control of speculative movements. Nothing is! The scandalous bonuses of the big bosses? Read last week’s press: the topic is practically taboo.

Today, the global economy is virtually on the ground. When I read the governor of the National Bank, of our National Bank: "The situation," he said, "is not as bad as in 2008-2009 but we are moving in this direction." I am sure that 15 days later, he would not repeat the same thing because a big step was taken in the wrong direction.

At the level of Greece, the absurdity of the system is frightened. A group of independent experts say that the Greek deficit is uncontrollable and yet, it should be controlled by those who try to repay the country and especially by the European authority.

When you see how much Greece had to pay to borrow a two-year loan at a rate of 55%, it is madness! This shows that the system has gone crazy.

Strengthening and reforming the financial system must now be the objectives of the European Union.

Strict because healthy public finances are a guarantee of future for European countries and for bold public policies of redistribution.

To accompany this budgetary rigour, it is obviously necessary to hunt for waste, but also to look for new revenue, especially in the financial world, in particular from those and those who have profited from leaving the "finance casino".

So, my dear colleagues, I ask you the question: when an individual steals his neighbor, if he is identified, he is condemned, or even finds himself in prison; when speculators throw into the misery of tens of millions of people, when they make vacillate up to democratic states, they act – still today – in complete impunity. Isn’t it time to shape a morality in international financial relations? Isn’t it time to create an authority that will establish the rules of a game that has now become criminal for many peoples; rules overseen by a financial police and sanctioned by judges? But does Europe have the political will to launch the idea, deepen it, expand it and put an end to this part of community racket?

Wishful thinking? Or maybe . But when Interpol was created, some people thought the same way. And if nothing is done I promise you – I promise us – a lot of violence and destabilization in all the states that will be affected by speculation in the future, because the spoiled and desperate people will no longer let themselves do.

At this stage, however, European findings focus on the exchange of good practices between states and that, rightly. My group, however, believes that it is time to impose smart governance on banks as well. Banks are central to the proper functioning of the economy. This involves duties, but also the need for checks, labels, in short, a clear European framework.

In the project that we are dealing with today, it should be noted that European solidarity has affirmed itself, and that is a good thing: a little clarity in a very dark sky! This is how we move from a crisis management mechanism to genuine financial assistance to states. This is undoubtedly a progress. Since the beginning of the economic crisis, the European Union has reacted to events without ever preceding them, thereby increasing the feeling of fear among citizens and panic in the markets. Now, in the last few weeks, we have noticed a determination to help states before they experience a disastrous crisis. For the PS Group, this is a major step forward. A solidary Europe must be built by adopting structural measures.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight one last point: banks will contribute to the aid plan for Greece from now on. It is clear that some of them played a detrimental role, which they now have in the form of a boomerang following the crisis we have known. It is logical and obvious that they must participate in the joint effort. We say yes to rigour, because there is no other choice but not to a blind austerity that, in the long run, would prevent the resumption of economic growth.

My colleagues, of course, my group will support this bill as well as the amendments of the government, reflecting the declaration of the heads of state and government of the member countries of the euro area, which was made at the meeting of 21 July this year. The “never again this” cannot be done alone; it is necessary to act in the urgency, respecting the contributing capacity of each. It is in this spirit that the PS group will vote on the government’s draft.

I thank you.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Deputy Prime Ministers, Dear colleagues, the markets are the thermometer of the credibility of States in the duration and continuity of efforts policies. The turbulence and instability of the financial markets are raising increasing concerns about the growth prospects.

From this point of view, the decline in the US economic rating is rich with lessons. It obviously means a concern about the prospects for sustainable growth in the United States, but also an additional concern for our European economies. Beyond economic foundations, this is especially the first time a rating agency has sanctioned the inability of political leaders to make necessary and courageous decisions. Citizens are waiting for us to tell them the truth and to act.

This is a double requirement. It is clear that we will have to act and take our responsibilities at the budgetary level. We will discuss this issue again soon.

But action should also be taken at European level to address the instability experienced by the markets in recent weeks and the worsening situation in Greece. Our intention is obviously to implement the decisions taken at European level, the decisions of the European Council of 11 March and to transpose the Declaration of the Heads of State and Government of the Member States of the euro area of 21 July. The objective is to increase the possibilities of intervention from the European Fund for Financial Stability and to increase the maximum contribution of States in guarantees.

Today’s vote should give a green light to the European Financial Stability Fund, which will give it more flexibility. If the process goes smoothly, the fund will in the future be able to lend to a State in a preventive way, finance the recapitalization of banks and financial institutions through loans to governments and finally directly intervene in the secondary markets of sovereign debt, in order to avoid contagion and fight against speculation.

I am not worried about today’s vote: it seems to me that we have all taken the measure of the challenge. I know that we will vote on the text with a very large majority.

The reason for this text and the solution it brings reminds us of the relevance of the European project as well as the responsibility of policy makers. All the mobilizing force of the “Fathers of Europe” does not belong to the legends of the past; it can be ours if we have the ambition.

Therefore, however essential it may be, the text we will vote for is in fact only a step in the European construction, a bridge to a more successful institutional structure.

For those and those – and I know they count in number in this assembly – who believe in the European project, this text is part of a story that began long before us and that will continue long after, I hope.

In December 2001, at Laeken, during the former Belgian presidency, Member States laid the groundwork for a revision of the founding treaties. Ten years later, despite these reforms, Europe still faces its divisions and its failures: the failure of the Copenhagen Climate Summit, European hesitation and fragility in the face of the markets in the storm of the financial crisis and on the international stage, weakness of Europe that struggles to organize.

That is why today’s vote is also a response to a concrete problem, but also a step towards greater integration and, therefore, a call for a more political Europe.

The crisis we are witnessing is not only that of the euro: it is the crisis of an unfinished European construction. In the face of the packaging of the markets, in the face of the speculators who bet on the breakdown of the euro, it would probably have had to lead a lightning war. It is in fact a war of trades that we are witnessing. While France, the first, officially announced its support for the July 21 plan, other states will announce their consent in the weeks or even months to come. This race of slowness denotes a lack of vision even when the time of solidarity with the truffle is over.

This type of relationship between states already belongs to the past simply because Europe can no longer afford it. In fact, the question is not so much whether or not one believes in the capacity of Greece to repay its debt. This is an aspect of the reflection, of course, but which is very conjunctual. And we know the domino effect that would result from a bankruptcy of a member state of the euro area.

But no, the question is much more important. It is the result of the bitter observation that Europe has multiplied for years the failed appointments, for which we now pay the bill.

Can we pursue a common monetary policy and strive for consistent economic development while engaging in fiscal competition between Member States and in the absence of budgetary discipline? Can one claim to weigh on the globalized financial market while its legal framework remains defined on a national basis?

Europe has sometimes been compared to an unfinished ship facing a storm. The formula is fair enough. The structure of the ship should be thoroughly reviewed, even if it is not convenient to carry out such repairs in the open sea.

The European project evolves at the pace of crises, as if it was necessary to prove by the example of its relevance to convince public opinions to give it effect. It is still that the minds have evolved heavily during this financial crisis. I invite you to take a retrospective look at the past few months. Take account of the achievements achieved, in particular during the Belgian Presidency of the European Union during the second half of 2010. These advances are significant. These concern the regulation of the financial sector, in particular the financial supervision with the establishment of the three European authorities and the Systemic Risk Committee. They also include the regulation of hedge funds and rating agencies. Who would have thought ten years ago that we would conclude these agreements on financial regulation and economic governance? I believe that ten years ago, no one would have hoped for this, or at least would have believed in this realization.

Things are moving. In Germany and France, leading voices are heard to praise the European ambition. Even a few months ago, commentators were lost in analyses on the consequences of referendums – remember a few years ago – and on the alleged European marasme.

Those who at the time wrote their hope of seeing the United States of Europe be born were disappointed, were perceived at best as idealists but most often as utopists. However, they are visionaries who give full meaning to political commitment.

There are comments and speculation, but there is also action and political responsibility. I firmly believe that the actors of change reveal themselves in those moments when history is complicated.

Following the German Chancellor and the President of the French Republic who pledged for the establishment of an economic government of the euro area, the President of the European Central Bank, Mr. Trichet, and his appointed successor, Mr. Draghi, in turn, advocated greater mutual supervision of national economic policies.

Clearly, it is necessary not only to monitor national budget developments much closer, but also to impose coherence in terms of economic governance. The monetary union must go hand in hand with the harmonisation of structural reforms to improve the competitiveness of national economies. The aim is to reduce the disparity in growth and employment across the euro area. To this end, it must be possible to put under guardianship a State which is unable to meet its obligations and to make appropriate decisions. This is the meaning also desired by the European Parliament, who has formulated it in the package on economic governance, the "six package", which will come to complement the "European Semester" already in force.

France and Germany have announced their intention to harmonize the rates and corporate tax base by 2013. This seems to me to be an example of concrete realization in the history of the construction of a political whole. I obviously encourage our government – the Minister of Finance who has already mentioned the importance of this measure – to multiply initiatives to include the Benelux in this path. May we meet next year, at the opening of the session, and conclude that the founding countries of Europe have successfully achieved, during the past fiscal year, this first step of their fiscal harmonisation.

I repeat: it is mistaken about its ambitions to pretend to pursue a common monetary policy and to fight for coherent economic development if, at the same time, it engages in a fiscal competition between Member States and if it fails to obtain a genuine accepted budgetary discipline. A European Minister of Finance could obviously symbolize and embody this budgetary discipline and this economic governance.

The debate on the inclusion in the Constitution of the golden rule on budgetary balance may involve this company. If we choose this path, the institutional peculiarity of our country will have to be taken into account. The pursuit of a stability pact between the different levels of power would ⁇ be more appropriate.

In the same order of ideas, we also support the creation of euro bonds. To ensure a collective and rigorous management of sovereign debt, solidarity must be organized: aid to Greece already resembles European obligations. These above all testify to our willingness to see Europe head quickly, without waiting for new crises, on the path of this integration which we call our wishes and which must go hand in hand with an increased accountability of all members of the euro area.

Several of the aforementioned reforms will require prior institutional changes. And we are aware of the differences in sensitivity within the Union. The Lisbon Treaty makes a great part of the intergovernmental approach at the expense of the federalist conception in such a way that it is illusory to undertake these reforms at twenty-seven. As the enlargements progress, decision-making has become increasingly difficult, even though our daily lives are increasingly dependent on measures decided at this level. The lack of coordination promotes the repetition of sterile and demobilizing episodes, such as when one of the partners slows down the process of saving Greece, and therefore the euro, in order to curb its public opinion on the eve of internal elections.

Terrible competitors are developing outside of Europe: in Asia, Latin America. And we must ask ourselves whether Europeans want to continue playing in the first division or if they prefer, due to some sort of historical fatigue, to let their specificities be swept by the breath of globalization and be relegated to the rank of secondary powers. Do they intend to guarantee social conquests and a certain conception of living together? Only strengthened common institutions will allow us to preserve our influence in the world as our original model of society combining market economy, solidarity and philosophical neutrality of the state.

On the two fields of European construction, enlargement and deepening, it seems to me that we have gone to the end of the possibilities. Extensions, even justified, hindered deepening; quantitative hurt the qualitative; and deepening reached the limit of the intergovernmental method. The two questions are obviously linked. For promoters of continuous enlargement, the European project is limited to a mere space of free economic movement, or even to the defense of human rights. On the contrary, the ambition of a political community, based on shared values and weighing on the global stage, raises the question of limits. This war of tranches between the supporters of a vast market without political ambition and the supporters of a sui generis form of federation can find an outcome from above, namely the formation of a hard core of a European federation that would coexist with the Union, which could then be expanded to about thirty states.

However, this cannot be done immediately. The first step is the establishment of enhanced cooperation. I don’t think we have a lot of choice today. This is the option that must be chosen: the possibility offered to nine states, who want to go faster and further, to entrust to the Union matters previously regulated by the intergovernmental. These enhanced cooperations could be developed as a priority in a range of areas. Their launch corresponds in particular to the immediate existential challenges of Europe, in the first place of which is the economic government, namely regulation, supervision of financial markets, coordination of economic policies, regulation of risk analysis, control of public finances.

It is clear that if the Union had been able to immediately launch bond loans, in the image of Member States and regions, as it did in Belgium, it would have been able to prevent the Greek crisis. Politically, the rapid intervention of the Union would undoubtedly have saved another arbitration between divided states. Financially, it could have, from the beginning of the crisis, raised funds at a rate twice as low as the one imposed on Greece today. On the stock market level, this intervention would have reassured speculators.

This acceleration is not an ideological vision of Europe. It seems, on the contrary, the best way to discourage speculation on the euro and the finances of its members. by Mr. Although Van Rompuy will gather our heads of state and government or the finance ministers, his approach will remain affected by a congenital infirmity, namely its intergovernmental nature and the right of veto of each state that accompanies it. For this reason, the economic government of Europe can not be located in the European Council, but rather in the so-called “supranational” community institutions.

In conclusion, how can we not link the concerted action within the euro area and – an element which is obviously of a completely different order – the military intervention in Libya under the auspices of France and Britain? In both cases, Europeans have put their determination at the service of great ambitions. In both cases, the success of the enterprise is due to the consultation between the Member States. But there is one point that distinguishes them: the valse hesitation of some partners will have lost time and credibility to the Stability Fund. Without this, we could ⁇ have achieved more proven and ⁇ earlier results, like the rapid military engagement that was decisive in ending the Libyan crisis last March.

This constitutes a new proof by the example that Europe imposes itself as a force of change carrying values when it gives itself the means of its ambitions and when it commits itself to building a true political community. In the coming decades, the action of our political generation will be judged in particular on the basis of our concrete advances in this great project. It is our responsibility to actively participate in its implementation.

We will, of course, vote today on the bills that are presented to us, but we know well that Europe could have done better. It is up to all national parliaments to accept greater European integration in the areas of economic governance.

Dear President, Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, Colleagues, the CD&V Group will fully support the current bill on the European Financial Stability Facility, the EFSF. We thank the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and everyone in the cabinets and administrations for the important work they do for the benefit of the euro and for the benefit of employment, purchasing power and the protection of the savings of so many people in our country.

The present draft law is important because it sensitively affects the guarantees that our country provides from 15.3 to 34.5 billion euros. It is important to know that the EFSF has significantly expanded its range of actions with the possibility to purchase government bonds on the secondary market, which means that one can buy already traded bonds. It is another step in a more extensive form of intervention and a clear indicator of how difficult the situation has become in the meantime.

So we want to be solidary with a burning Greece and with other countries in difficulty in the eurozone. However, it is not easy to be solidary with those who have taken a walk with financial transparency, who have heavily adorned the figures. This gives us an unpleasant feeling. On the one hand, we want to be solidary with the Greeks themselves, Europeans who are 99.9% victims of the current situation. On the other hand, they want to send the message that it is not possible to simply distort numbers and then rely on the unconditional financial support of the same Europe. Fraud is not a good preparer of solidarity.

Belgium is facing a historic decision. On the one hand, the road is a seemingly easy and slow path. It even goes a little mountainous so that we get the impression that we should take that path. It will be easy.

On the other side is a path, a little harder, a little hill up, a tricky path, apparently ambetant.

Belgium has always belonged to a wealth axis in Europe, from Southern England, Western Netherlands, Southern Germany to Northern Italy. The question is whether we want to continue to belong to it.

In my opinion, therefore, it is not an option to take the easy path, which in the first years goes a little mountainous and makes the step easier. We have a historical duty to rejoin the hard core of eurozone countries such as Germany, the Netherlands and Austria who have understood that a high public debt not only carries significant risks for the country, but also makes a lot of money flow away into something that is not so social in itself, especially interest charges.

Reducing our deficit to a structural balance by 2015 is a necessary prerequisite to rejoin what our historic place is, the best of Europe. In this way, we can definitely leave behind the mistakes of the past.

The adventure of debt financing, which also in our country has caused enormous damage to the social and economic tissue, must be definitively stopped. It is therefore worthy of recommendation that Belgium should include in its Constitution a structural balance following the German example.

In principle, budgets over a conjuncture cycle are structurally balanced. A debt barrier according to the German example includes four essential points. First, a structural component. Budgets, including those of the provinces, must be structurally balanced.

Second, a conjuncture component. The possibility of incurring debt should be increased or limited according to the circumstances.

Third, there is an exception clause. In emergency situations, such as a sudden ecological disaster, one should be able to deviate from the above principles.

Fourth, the control of the accounts. This audit should ensure that the debt barrier works not only in the budget formulation, but also in the final arrangement.

In addition to the above-mentioned ambition of structural balance, which I think should be included in the Constitution, we must look at what we can do in the short term. It is advisable to first look at where we can save, before looking for new taxes. In Belgium, there is still a lot of possibilities in terms of savings.

The 2012 budget should therefore be a 100 % savings budget. First we need to take the aforementioned horde and then see in the future what follows. Maybe we’re going a long way with just saving.

In politics, a compromise is often sought. Soon it will be decided that 50 % will be saved and that 50 % will be new taxes. However, this is not a good principle to apply.

When we look only at the aspect of savings for 2012, we do a service to everyone, not only the left but also the right side of the political spectrum.

Meanwhile, Mr. Jambon, there is no one day to be lost. You are agreeing. You are quietly hiding in the side. In the meantime, there are people who need to renovate the roof. There are people who, meanwhile, need to make sure that the holes in the roof are sealed before the storm arrives. You are parked in the shelter. It is your right to stand separately in the shelter. The storm will soon come. There are people who will have to get wet to close the holes in the roof.

It is absolutely necessary that in the coming weeks and without delay a budget for 2012 be submitted that will bring us below the 3 % threshold and to a deficit of 2.8 %. Thus, we can escape the excessive debt procedure.

The financial markets are looking at us. There are strong Eurozone countries. There will also be weak eurozone countries. The weak eurozone countries will fall into a interest rate spiral. It is very important that we end up in the right group of eurozone countries. We have a number of assets for this.

There is also hope, thanks to the forward-looking anti-crisis policy of the current government, which was based on taking temporary, cash measures. This happened unlike other countries, such as France, where other measures were taken. As we fill the wish list of many interest groups, we are in a better position.

Second, there is still a lot of so-called low hanging fruit. This is a somewhat bad term in a budget context, but there is still a lot to do in our country. It always affects someone, but I think there are some relatively easy steps to take to bring us close to that 2.8%.

Third, consumer confidence, thanks to government measures, is still present in our country, unlike other countries. I think this is a good basis to leave.

Who should do that job now? Of course, not the people who parked on the drought. Usually a trainer. From a democratic point of view, this is the case. Elections have taken place and new coalitions are coming, so in principle, a formator is required. However, given the circumstances and given the fact that the financial markets are so on our heels, I think we should say that emergency law breaks. We need to close as many holes as possible before the storm comes. Repairing the roof while it already storms is not feasible. The Greeks give us the painful example of this, every day again.

We will help the Greeks. But, Prime Minister, we must also help ourselves. Parliament is ready for this.

Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen Ministers, as I announced last week Friday in the committee, our group will approve this bill, although it comes too late and contains too few measures.

It is no longer about Greece. It is about the euro. The eurozone is in danger. I think the time has come to ask how the problems in a small country like Greece – which represents less than 2 % of the economic weight of the euro area – could have caused the euro area to get into trouble.

I think the answer to that question is double.

A first explanation is that we are now being pressured to the shortcomings of the intergovernmental approach to budgetary, economic and social problems. The way the eurozone countries have addressed the Greek problem – by having it spread into a problem for the entire eurozone – means that we must work on it now, for the future, as soon as possible.

The first explanation is, therefore, the defective state of the European construction. I think approximately everyone is with it.

A second statement was given today in The Tomorrow, in an opinion piece by Nobel Prize winner Krugman. For him, others have already made it. The moralists, the monetary dogmatics, are of the opinion that if a country goes wrong – and let there be no doubt, Greece has gone wrong – it must penalize in hell.

We see, however, that that country has not fallen out of hell, the political and social stability of Greece is at stake.

It will be a moment of truth, a choice that we all face. Do we continue on that intergovernmental path, where the global problems of Europe are addressed in a way where each country first thinks of its own national interest and only then sees the general European interest? If we do so, it is clear that we are striving for the bankruptcy, not only of Greece, but of the entire eurozone and, in the case of enlargement, also of the European Union. Choosing that path leads to an incredible collective impoverishment for every European citizen.

My group opts for a European solidarity approach. We believe that this is the only way to get out with all of them. Because, those who now advocate for a controlled default or the bankruptcy of Greece or those who advocate for a country like Greece to throw out or leave the eurozone, wander and are very dangerous.

For if one country is thrown out of the eurozone, be sure that there will be a chain reaction of which one knows the beginning but not the end. We all know, I will not name, the countries that are already quoted. If the economic weight of those countries is summarized, it is already 30 % of the overall economic weight of the euro area. This should absolutely not happen.

Mr. Prime Minister and Mr. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, I address you, what do we need for the talks you will have on the European level in the coming days and weeks? We need clarity. Clearly, we are all defending the eurozone and all the countries in it with hands and teeth. We do not want one of these countries to go bankrupt. We do not want any of these countries to be expelled.

Colleagues, according to our group, there is only one possibility in the short term, namely that the European Central Bank plays its full role and provides unlimited liquidity, not only to the banks but ⁇ to the countries. This is the first phase.

In a second phase, and I said this, along with others, last week in the Committee on Finance, is that we must evolve towards a Europeanisation of debt.

In the United States, the debt in percentage of GDP is higher than that of the euro area and the deficit is greater than the overall deficit of the euro area. Nevertheless, the “dollar zone”, compared to that eurozone, is a haven of rest as it storms with us. This has to do with the big financial market that makes up the United States. Also there, in some States, pay strikes have been held, officials have been dismissed and schools have been closed. But do they have the problems we face? No, because they have an integrated economic, monetary and budgetary policy. We must take the same path, and my group, together with others, is defending the idea of euro bonds.

The fire must therefore be extinguished and this can only be done by making clear that we all stand behind the euro area and behind every member of the euro area. Once the fire has been extinguished, reconstruction must take place because it is clear that the monetary union is too fragile without a political and economic union.

We therefore need a common policy of economic, budgetary, but also of – and I want to emphasize this – social and fiscal convergence. It is not possible that this crisis will only result in greater integration in budgetary policy, but that we are lagging behind in social and fiscal terms. If they do so, they lay the germs for the next crisis.

What we then need is that also in the European Union, following the example of the United States, an effort is made for economic growth. Without growth, public finances will not be restored.

The third and last point is as follows. On behalf of my group, I regret the fact that today Belgian banks could again be in trouble.

Before the holidays, we all decided to re-establish the follow-up committee that was installed in 2008 to study the financial crisis. On behalf of my group, we call for the urgent launch of this committee. We have a lot of work. First, we could evaluate what has been done from the report of that follow-up committee. Ladies and gentlemen, it is not much.

Secondly, we have a government of ongoing affairs that must take important decisions regarding the Belgian banks within two, three or four weeks. We do not think she can do that on her own. Only Parliament has that legitimacy after the June 2010 elections. Therefore, there is a need for good cooperation between the Government in ongoing matters and the Parliament.

Our group calls for the urgent launch of the follow-up committee to look at the problems together with the government and to look for the solutions that are emerging with regard to the Belgian banks.

These are turbulent times. Anyone who has ever been on a plane knows what turbulence is. One is shaken as soon as one flies in unstable air. That’s very annoying and it can also be very awkward, but actually it’s not sure if that’s also dangerous. You need to keep your head cool and stay calm. It becomes dangerous only when there is real panic. Fasten your seat belt, keep your head cool, and that ⁇ applies to the pilot in question.

I use this image because it is very well comparable to what we are going through now in the euro crisis. We are going through turbulent times, but our course, our project, is actually very clear.

We have a monetary union and we see and feel it. We pay with the euro every day. People see and feel this every day. We also have an economic project. Unfortunately, we have not always had enough eye for that economic-budgetary reality to follow the monetary project. That union is also and above all a political project and we must take care that we do not lose sight of it in this crisis. These three things together, we must keep in mind at the moment we are in turbulence.

So we are in a crisis. How does the European Union handle this crisis? There are three separate problems that have consequences for each other.

First and foremost there is Greece, the rotten apple, the pain point of the crisis we are experiencing. It is important – that is the intention of Europe – to isolate Greece as much as possible from the problem, to stop making it subject to the markets, to ensure that it is removed from the center of the turbulence. To do this, we need to count on solidarity. This is what one does in a political union; one does not let each other go. We are helping Greece.

We do this not only because we like to be solidary, but also because we want to prevent the risk of infection. It is a threat of contagion in a Union where the interests of banks, countries and people are increasingly intertwined. We do not want the fire in Greece to spread to other countries.

What have we done? There was a rescue plan twice. The first came a year ago. On 21 July 2011, a second rescue plan was agreed, but it has not yet been implemented. To do this, we need the adjustment that we approve today.

This brings me to my second, important package. The first package aims to isolate Greece and get rid of the market turbulence. The second package aims to bring stability to countries that have problems, but which are not the mess that other speakers have already mentioned, which is the mess that Greece has rightly created.

The European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) is the European Financial Stability Facility. In fact, it can be calmly stated that it is a kind of European Monetary Fund, which we are not only expanding and of which we are not only expanding the possibilities, by drawing more money for it; we also ensure that it has the capacity to bring the said stability.

This means that we will not only be able to help countries. Guarantees and loans will also be given to banks and institutions. Paper can also be traded on the secondary market.

The intended stability is extremely important, in order to ensure that the contamination of Greece does not spread to a number of other countries. This is what we approve and do today.

Sometimes the question is whether something does not come too late. Something does not come too late. It is an important step in European decision-making. It also frustrates me that it could not be otherwise and that it could not be more efficient and more to the point. However, we are rooting with the belts that we have. Given the things that are made possible by the mechanism in question, we cannot ignore that it is an important step towards greater stability in the European Union.

The third, important step is ⁇ the most important. We cannot first isolate the Greek problem and then bring stability, unless we then ensure that fiscal integration in the European Union continues to progress.

There we must return to the core agreements we once made when we began the conscious story. We must return to the principle: “Agreement is an agreement.” It is the Dutch government with Prime Minister Rutte who has understood this principle well. We want to re-establish budgetary discipline. It wants sanctions again if a country does not do what it has promised. She also wants a European Commissioner who can oversee the conscious agreements.

The above is important to us, a small country – the Netherlands is in the same situation –. After all, we benefit from the Community method, which has been cited here. We are a small country that benefits from European cooperation. We must therefore also ensure that such cooperation takes place on the basis of the Community method and not on the basis of the intergovernmental method.

These three steps are essential. I notice that many in all turbulence and panic can no longer keep their heads cool. They start with exit scenarios, want to change course, forgetting that the European Union is also a political project. We do not agree with this at all. We also do not agree with everyone who gives mixed signals. Today, “the 34 billion in the EFSF” has been emphasized several times, giving the impression that Greece receives a gift of 34 billion euros. That is not correct. That is not true. The EFSF mechanism can serve all countries. Any country that comes into trouble and needs a push in the back can resort to that mechanism. Belgium may be the next one in the line.

That brings me to my next point. If the budget is not in order, if the economic foundations are not in order, then what we are going to vote on today is meaningless. Then trying to save Greece, trying to almost unanimously vote on the EFSF is lost effort. Then we mainly swing with a moralising finger towards another, while we do not do our own homework. It is crucial to fully follow the European recommendations, not only selectively, not only what is in our interests. It may not be that we follow Europe to help the poor Greeks but it will no longer agree with it as soon as Europe says what Belgium should do. It must not be like other countries that follow Europe when it comes to a number of economic factors, but must remain selectively deaf as soon as Europe asks all sub-entities in those countries to contribute their stone. We need volunteerism to put this European project back on track.

There remains one question. Who should prepare this budget in our country? Collega Bogaert has said that it is going to storm and that someone needs to put panes on the roof. Well, Mr. Bogaert, on the other side of the street, one is building a new house. It seems to me no more than normal that in this country, where negotiations are held, it is the choice of the voter. Thus, it is the negotiators who make the political choices for the future. I hope, maybe with you. In the meantime, we are not allowed to turn our thumbs. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Budget and the Secretary of State of the outgoing government are working hard on the preparations, but there must be a political will to leave it to the negotiators as soon as possible.

Ms. Rutten, I understand very well that one is building a new house across the street. You say it yourself, you are building. Together with you, I hope that it will be a beautiful house and that it will be built quickly. But what if that building doesn’t get there so fast? So what do we do with the hot breath of the financial markets in the neck? So it might be wise that the government of ongoing affairs, with roughly the same political parties, assumes its responsibilities, quickly sets things in order and prepares the budget for 2012.

If I read the note-Di Rupo correctly, there are masses of new taxes in it. I think that the government in ongoing affairs can avoid that. In 2012, we will be able to see if we can create a savings budget instead of a tax budget. I think you, as a liberal, will be very supportive of this.

Mr. Bogert, it is nice that you say that we need to quickly draw up a budget. I also agree with you what direction we should take. We share your concern about what the financial markets are overlooking.

But what kind of signal one gives – when it is the markets who doubt the political leadership and when it is the markets who wonder whether this country is still able to put its economic household in order – by saying: “Do it, we will fix it quickly.”

It is the political responsibility of the people who want to form a government to try to make a budget. It will not go fast. I wish it could. These are important choices for the future. Large lines are drawn.

It is true that what is on the table is not ideal and that it will have to be worked very hard, but then you will have to place the responsibility where it lies.

It is not true that nothing is happening in the meantime. The outgoing government is working on the preparations. She is still waiting for numbers and she is doing a lot of preparatory work. I think it can be perfect, but the pressure must remain where it lies.

Finally, the fact that we are approving a European Financial Stability Mechanism here today sounds quite technical. That is regrettable. What we need to do is give an important signal. We need to show that the euro is important to us and that the European project is important to us. My group will vote in favour today, as a demonstration of our unconditional belief in this European project. Anyone who thinks we need to touch it will encounter us on his way!

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Minister of Finance, I see that after an hour of debate the attention from the government on current affairs already begins to diminish.

Nevertheless, on behalf of the Flemish Interest Group, I will present our vision regarding the forthcoming expansion of the Stabilisation Fund, the EFSF.

On the day after the Euro Summit on July 21, the political leaders came to tell us in front of the microphone what important decisions they had made to end the loose burden of the euro crisis, after the stunt and kakophony of the last months.

The question we must ask today is whether these measures will be adequate. Will they be on time? When we look at the political actuality, I have my doubts. I feel they are already too late.

Over the past few weeks, from various angles, and I mean not only from the political, but also from the financial and academic world, there have been quite a few comments on how to address the ongoing debt crisis.

I can only find that questions about those so-called good decisions of the Euro Summit of 21 July 2011 are increasing as the small letters and the double bottom of the decisions become known and reach the public forum.

Although the political elite at the European level attempts to take all sorts of measures to address the debt crisis by imposing one plan after another on the Member States through the European Signature Board, the debt crisis in a number of countries, and the Greek tragedy in particular, is out of control. That is the least we can say today.

And then I don’t understand some fractions, N-VA in particular. They say that we cannot otherwise than support the present draft of additional support and additional powers to the emergency fund and thus approve because we stand with our back against the wall.

What is that argument? It is not with such operations of money transfers from Member States to the emergency fund, it is not with such money-sweeping measures that a well-functioning and united Europe will come.

The Flemish Belang is very critical of this and can therefore not agree with the political vision of the decisions of the Euro Summit of 21 July.

The Belgian disease of the transfer economy is being focused on the European system, without knowing who and how will continue to finance the EFSF Fund and what powers the Member States will still have to delegate to Europe in the coming time.

Since the discussion in the committee on the Belgian participation in the Emergency Fund and the provision of 34.5 billion euros of state guarantee through that Emergency Fund, yet about 10 % of the gross domestic product as Mr Vandeput said, no day has passed whether the stock markets reacted stimulated and colored at moments of shame after any change in the European financial economic framework. There is hardly any stabilization of the debt crisis.

Last Friday, the stock market storm broke out again after the chief economist of the European Central Bank, Jürgen Stark, resigned. The underlying reason was that he could no longer agree to the ECB’s policy of continuing to buy more and more Italian and Spanish government securities to consequently press the Spanish and Italian interest rates. It once again demonstrates the profound disagreement on how to deal with the debt crisis and that the printing of new euro banknotes does not bring sunshine.

Or could the dismissal of the person concerned, Jürgen Stark, have anything to do with the introduction of those so-called euro bonds? That is the next so-called magic tool with which one thinks to tackle the euro crisis.

However, one should know that with the introduction of these euro bonds, the lower countries will pay the league of the higher countries. We saw that yesterday, Germany goes into the market and can collect at 0.2% interest rate, while Italy must pay 5% interest rate in the short term. Everyone knows that with euro bonds you will have to account for an average interest rate and then, of course, in this case, Germany will pay the fee. Furthermore, it would be unreasonable to continue capitalizing on German creditworthiness.

The introduction of euro bonds does not cause any problems unless there is a rigorous and mandatory recovery programme for the Member States concerned. Look at what the impact is in Greece, which remains stuck in a sequence of heavy savings and massive tax increases, which exacerbate the recession and further shrink Greece’s public finances. Meanwhile, Greece has been trapped in that chaos for three years, without offering a structural solution. It remains in a deadly vicious circle.

Thus, the new bailout package barely offers any prospect of an accelerated end to the Greek recession. This second bailout package will not restore Greece’s economic growth. Not to mention that something structural is being done to address the Greek government debt of 340 billion euros.

What does our government do? What are our government leaders doing? They are throwing the loose and splinter-sick eurozone countries a rescue bucket after a rescue bucket. They become the rescue plans of the rescue plans. The Greek debt is addressed by deepening the country’s debt and extending the repayment deadlines.

That is a risky strategy, because if it fails, the entire eurozone will be destabilized and dragged into the abyss, or as Chancellor Merkel formulated on September 7th: “If the euro fails, Europe fails”, if the euro falls, then Europe falls.

Meanwhile, the nervousness over the situation in Greece is growing again. In early September, experts from the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the IMF interrupted their inspection mission in Athens because the government had not made sufficient progress in implementing the reforms Greece had promised in exchange for financial support from the eurozone countries and the IMF. This month, borrowers will have to pay a debt to Greece again. The payment of that disc was always conditional and we are therefore looking forward with great interest to the progress that the Greek government will have made, but we have no confidence in it or the financial markets.

There is no one who believes that the Greek government, by allocating additional money from the European Structural Funds, can stimulate its economic growth in a structural way. The economic decline in Greece in the second quarter was 7.3%. This is not just a pit, it is also a situation that one cannot get out of in the short term. What happens if Greece pays off only a fraction of the outstanding debt in 2014? Argentina did the same at the time. There is no one who believes that the Greek government will be able to fulfill its commitments and repay the loans granted, including interest and guarantees, on the due date. Moreover, a recent Bloomberg study shows that 85% of investors already believe that Greece cannot pay its debts and therefore there is no or only partial repayment to be expected.

The question, of course, is who will pay that non-refunded portion? The banking and insurance sector? and no. Through their voluntary contributions, however, they have set the condition that they will always see their money back. Then it remains the Member States, which have given the guarantees or have entered into the participation and therefore at the end of the ride the modal taxpayer will pay the lease. for the second time. While the Flemish taxpayer is still digesting the account of the banking crisis, the next account will be presented in the foreseeable time.

Another question is how much government securities and debt from banks the EFSF can continue to buy in order to manage the debt crisis. After all, let us note: the present draft aims to extend the powers of the conscious emergency fund.

Until now, the emergency fund could only provide loans to eurozone countries that could not get money in any way. The new agreement has given the Emergency Fund much more powers.

For example, the Emergency Fund can now also provide definitive loans to countries that are at risk of getting in trouble, so maybe soon also to Belgium. It may also buy weak government bonds from private parties, such as banks, insurance companies and investment companies, who want to get rid of such bonds, so soon probably also bonds from Belgian banks. It can also lend money to governments of all eurozone countries, thus also from non-problem countries, where banks must be rescued with new capital injections, so soon also to the Belgian government.

If you ask me, this means a serious extension of the powers of the Emergency Fund, but without sufficient financial resources.

I also continue to wonder what additional powers the Member States will have to delegate to Europe for this purpose, resulting in a further expropriation of the sovereignty of the Member States.

My colleagues, some things seem to be not enough. After all, when I hear the recent statements of IMF chairwoman Christine Lagarde, who is not the first to be the best, we are once again referring to a liquidity crisis of the banks. Therefore, the reserves of the banks should be included in the emergency fund. Furthermore, the emergency fund should be raised by EUR 1 500 billion, compared with EUR 440 billion currently provided.

The question is where this will end.

Mr. Minister of Finance, I should also mention one of the double bottom points of the decisions of the Euro Summit of 21 July 2011.

It turns out that through direct negotiation, that is, outside the other countries of the European Union around, Finland has concluded an agreement with Greece on the terms of its share in the Greek emergency aid. The Finns would have stipulated that for them a security of one billion euros would be placed on a separate account. If Greece does not repay the aid, Finland would be allowed to retain the aforementioned amount plus the interest.

Finland is therefore not at risk with its 1.4 billion euro contribution to the Greek debt crisis, while the Belgian government through the guarantees will deposit a lot of billions of euros in the Greek and other, groundless wells.

I must admit that the Finns at the Eurotop summit on 21 July 2011 took the lesson well, while other government leaders have slept asleep. This creates another confusion over the decisions of the European Summit of 21 July 2011. Thus, the top also seems to be a messy piece, to which there will be no more rope to be attached.

Furthermore, I find it strange that Parliament was not informed of this possibility during the Prime Minister’s debriefing on 26 July. It remains strange that one country can negotiate a guarantee, but the other cannot. The Finnish Minister of Finance, by the way, claims that it has informed the other Member States. In short, Mr. Minister of Finance, you were aware of that construction.

My question is, then, why has the Belgian government not requested a guarantee? Why didn’t you fly to Athens to do the same? The Finns have now realized that they are not at any risk for their contribution to the emergency fund.

Mr. Minister, I must say that your response in the committee on Friday 2 September was extremely confusing. Apparently, an agreement must be followed, in which a choice is made between the countries that wish to provide a guarantee. In addition to Finland – which now has an agreement with Greece – Austria, Slovenia and Slovakia are also interested in such a guarantee. I do not understand why the Belgian federal government does not request it. You seem to continue to believe that you will be able to fully recover the invested amounts. I think this is ⁇ short-sighted.

I come to my conclusion, Mr. Speaker. The more the political elite on the European forum says that the euro crisis is under control, the more the exit of Greece remains as the only solution. More and more people are voting to keep behind the “Acropolis adieu” scenario.

When I hear the recent statements of Hans Werner Sinn – the president of the influential Ifo Institut and an important adviser to Chancellor Merkel – the tide seems to turn. In a recent interview, he said it would be a good thing if Greece temporarily left the eurozone.

I also note that the German government in recent days has openly admitted that the bankruptcy of Greece can no longer be ruled out. This is why the German government, along with the German banks, is preparing for Greece’s exit, in order to prevent the end of the euro.

Even former European Commissioner Frits Bolkestein – not the first the best, and liberal in heart and kidneys – now speaks openly about the Greek exit.

Recently, a very interesting book entitled “Das Euro-Abenteuer geht zu Ende,” written by five prominent German professors, appeared.

I sum up their statements: they cannot live with the fact that the measures would weigh on Germany forever and for an unlimited amount. Germany will be the last bastion that can keep the euro up. We should not give money to Greece and Portugal. It is a groundless vessel. Countries must be able to save themselves. They can too. This is the analysis of these five German professors.

Vlaams Belang has always defended this position because we, as nationalists, stand on the side of the Greek people. The only option that can help the Greeks is to temporarily step out of the euro and become back in control of their own currency, the drachme. That is the fulfillment of sovereignty because after so many months there is no structural solution in the prospect. The Greeks will never accept the ever tougher conditions imposed. The Greeks are too proud and too self-conscious to want that. If they have to choose between European curatele and poverty, they will choose poverty because they know that punishment will come back later as a reward.

The Greek government can, after leaving or being put out of the eurozone, devaluate its currency and, together with its own interest rate policy, re-create economic growth so that there will be a revival. Thus, the Greeks are once again given the instruments to address their financial and economic situation in a structural way instead of seeing their telecommunications sector disappear in Turkish hands and having to sell their ports to the Chinese for a havebretrat. The Greek government can then take measures for which there is a support within the Greek society, instead of accepting the measures imposed on the European drawing board but not bringing sodes to the dive. By temporarily leaving the euro, a Greece that can recover economically can become stronger, a Greece behind the Greeks. Furthermore, the likelihood that EU Member States will still return their money is increasing.

Let us just break a taboo, colleagues, because we will also have to bite through that sour apple. With an open mind, we must dare to challenge the entire euro project, especially with regard to the PIGS countries, not only Greece, but also Spain, Portugal and Italy. A Northern Euro and a Southern Euro should be negotiable. The concept of a weakened European Union will also have to be on the table.

In that view, the Flemish Belang is not in favour of the current measures that legally stipulate a further expansion of the emergency fund. Therefore, we will not support this bill. We will vote against with conviction.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Ministers, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, the situation of public finances in Europe is changing from day to day. It is rather black clouds than the great beautiful weather that profile on the horizon.

Two preliminary ones. First, everyone in this parliament must be aware that community quarrels that have paralyzed the federal state for too many months are a luxury. We must succeed as soon as possible in the establishment of a full-fledged government, capable of acting for the good of all and to safeguard the prosperity of our fellow citizens. This is the meaning of our presence at the table of negotiations and the efforts we have made for many months, together Ecolo and Groen!, to try to succeed.

Secondly, rather than taking over-the-counter measures, too late and too weak, such as those currently on the table, action should be taken by implementing fundamental reforms at European level and in the area of financial regulation.

Some continue to deny it; they prefer to cover their faces in the hope that the situation will naturally improve; that the application of half-measures will suffice to reassure the markets, as I have heard; that the blind austerity imposed on Greece will allow it to repay its colossal debt, debt further aggravated by the combined action of rating agencies, financial markets and speculators.

We need to stop this pollution policy! You have to stop covering your face. We need to see reality in front of us. The traditional receipts, applied so far, the logic of the markets, the “financialization” of the economy lead to failure. We do not see very well what will prevent Greece, under the current circumstances and in the absence of more structural measures than those proposed, from being in default and, in one way or another, from having to reassess or renegotiate its debt.

This will have consequences on its creditors, in particular banks including those that have been assisted by the Belgian State, which therefore have a public participation, Mr Reynders, and on the public finances of other States, including Belgium.

What is the point of denying it? To become aware of this is to give ourselves the opportunity to change the course of history and finally adopt the fundamental reforms that are necessary to build a more solidary and therefore more efficient Europe, in a goal of better shared prosperity among all European fellow citizens, among all inhabitants of Europe, including the Belgians.

This situation, of course, does not please us. It is not the joy of heart that we make these pessimistic findings. This is the failure of the capitalist model, it is the failure of a model of European construction that is not ours. We are, I recall, convinced federalists. Together with the other green parties in Europe, we act on a daily basis to build this Europe that we want to be green and solidary and that is not the one that is developing today.

A few examples. For our part, we dream of a Europe that is not only a monetary union, but also a social, economic and environmental Europe. Those who accepted, despite these budgetary difficulties already known at the time – you acknowledged, Mr. Reynders – that Greece is a member of the euro zone, thinking that membership of a monetary union would naturally solve all the problems of that country, have been heavily mistaken. No monetary union can survive if it does not rely on a political and therefore budgetary union. It is this increased European integration that needs to be accelerated and amplified, including from a budgetary point of view, as we see today in relation to the situation in Greece.

We need to stop the tax competition between states within the EU. This competition has primarily resulted in favoring a few large financial groups, helping them avoid taxation and depriving states of the necessary budgetary resources, with very heavy negative consequences for the weakest of them – as is seen with Greece. It also limits the capacity of EU governments to pursue effective educational policies, their ability to contribute to the reorientation of the economy, or to ensure the foundation of solidarity that characterizes our social model.

We must dismantle the tax havens created within the Member States, including in our country through notional interests, Mr. Reynders. It is necessary to define a common basis for the European states for corporate tax, both for the taxable base and for the tax rate.

As long as it is not a bottom leveling, this must contribute to stabilising public finances and provide the States with sufficient resources to carry out their tasks. This fiscal harmonisation is essential. It must be accompanied by a genuine willingness to fight tax evasion and tax havens, and by greater efficiency in the pursuit of tax justice.

As the serious financial scandals in Belgium show, we are very far from it. Like everywhere else, it requires political will and resources that are cruelly lacking.

Third, we denounce the fact that, despite solemn commitments made after the 2007 financial crisis, almost no regulatory measures for the financial sector have been adopted and implemented so far. Banks have been saved and speculation has come back more beautifully, including with regard to for example Greece. New modes of speculation, such as credit default swaps, allow speculators to record profits following difficulties encountered by states.

The rating agencies, which were seriously mistaken in their analysis at the time of the financial crisis, and whose interests mix with those of investors, whose vision is truncated and oriented, continue to do the good weather and especially the rain in Europe and elsewhere in the world. This increases the difficulties faced by countries.

The measures to be taken are known and sometimes even debated, but never actually implemented. I quote them. New rating rules are needed. The creation of valuation tools independent of the financial markets would limit their adverse influence. To make banks less vulnerable to market fluctuations, it would be appropriate to separate the banking business: deposit bank on one side and business banks on the other.

A tax on financial transactions should be introduced. It would have the dual virtue of curbing speculation and generating new useful resources to address the challenges posed to States and the European Union as a political entity.

Investments – including pension funds – must be oriented towards more sustainable and more ethical choices rather than speculation.

Of course, these measures must be applied from now on the banks that have been aided by the states, in particular by the Belgian state.

Fourth, we believe that in these difficult economic circumstances, Europe and its Member States must equip themselves with an investment capacity that will both enable them to meet the energy and environmental challenge which every day reminds us of the urgency and to generate jobs and a better shared prosperity among all.

It is urgent to invest in infrastructure, social cohesion, education, research, energy efficiency, conservation of our natural resources. Instead, austerity measures have been imposed on Greece which have led many Greeks into situations of extreme poverty and which literally risk killing the sick, preventing any economic restart of this country.

Some want to prescribe the same treatment to other countries including Belgium. They want to challenge our social model. They risk suffocating the educational and economic policies on which we must build the future. This is an example not to be followed. If it is necessary to manage the public budgets correctly and strictly, what we do where we are in responsibility, public authorities must retain their investment capacity.

The text, which will be voted as soon as possible, provides for the increase of the resources of the European Financial Stability Facility and a relaxation of its conditions of use. It can be seen as the embryo of a true European Monetary Fund in the future. With regard to Greece, it constitutes an indispensable act of solidarity, though insufficient and already outdated by the evolution of the situation. That’s why we supported him in the Finance Committee last week and that, with the exception of one of its members, your servant, the Ecolo-Groen group! He will vote for the same reasons of solidarity with the Greek people.

For my part and in full agreement with my political group, I will abstain to remind that these half-measures are insufficient and that we expect more fundamental reforms such as those I have detailed earlier, a more successful European federalism, more tax justice, a real financial regulation and an investment plan in the economy of tomorrow.

From the greatest crises are born the greatest reforms! We look forward to them with impatience. They are vital for the future of our society; they can no longer wait!

Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, Ladies and Gentlemen, Ladies and Gentlemen, the draft presented to us today concrete on the Belgian level the decisions taken by the European Council of 11 March 2011 and the Declaration of the Heads of State and Government of the Member States of the euro area of 21 July 2011.

Our political group, the CDH, will vote in favour of the text submitted to us today. Yes, he will vote positively first because the financial markets would not accept further hesitation in the adoption of measures indispensable for the survival of the euro area. The message that this Parliament must send must be clear. All means will be used to safeguard our currency and fight against the scrupulous speculators who bet on the bankruptcy of countries without worrying about the dramatic social consequences that result.

On this specific point, the CDH can only encourage the government to continue discussions in favour of a financial transaction tax at European level. At the same time, a reflection work will need to be carried out on the serious problem of rating agencies.

The CDH will vote in favour of this project as it represents a further step towards European integration. We have always shown ourselves to be persuaded europhiles, aware of the benefits of Europe on our standard of living. Expanding the powers of the EFSF and, in the future, of the European Stability Mechanism are necessary in this context.

However, many questions remain unstoppable and raise great concerns for the future. The first thing that comes to mind is how Greece, with a debt estimated for the end of 2011 at 152 % of its GDP, a deficit of more than 8 % and a catastrophic age pyramid letting predict the worst for tomorrow’s challenges related to aging, will be able to meet its financial commitments. Do not cover our faces! The risk of a defect is present. The troika, consisting of the IMF, the ECB and the European Commission, will provide us with more information in this regard in the coming weeks.

It remains, and I would like to recall, that the aid granted to Greece is the subject of separate plans – 110 billion in 2010 and 109 billion in July 2011, including 79 from the EFSF. I think these subsidies should be limited, for now, strictly to these amounts. In addition to the fact that the payments are conditional on the agreement of the troika, guarantor of our interests, it is not wise to use more before the EFSF given our exposure in the event of a default of Greece. I recall that the amount guaranteed by Belgium will amount to 34.5 billion euros, or 10% of our GDP. The amounts we unlock today should, in my opinion, help other countries, Portugal and Ireland at the forefront, which have otherwise stronger solvency guarantees.

These various considerations lead me to broaden the debate. In fact, all the measures taken in the last eighteen months to correct the situation, whether it be aid plans, rescue funds or the strengthening of budgetary rules, are not sufficient. For the CDH, new initiatives are needed to save the euro. The only positive aspect of this crisis is that it must force us to reflect on the foundations of our system, so that it must allow us to address topics that seemed taboo a few months ago.

The CDH thus pledges for the creation of euro-obligations in order to make the bond market more liquid. In addition, we are in favor of recapitalization of banks, an extension of the size of the European Financial Stabilization Fund and a greater European integration. The latter is essential to meet the challenge of growth of the Economic Union, growth indispensable to solve the problems related to aging and to maintain the standard of living of our population.

For the CDH, this is a triple integration – economic, fiscal and social – to which we must strive. However, a further reinforcement of economic integration could no longer occur in an intergovernmental framework or within the limits of the current treaty, whether it be euro bonds, the appointment of a true European finance minister – as some have suggested this week – or the partial guardianship of a country.

The new reforms envisaged raise questions of sovereignty and parliamentary control that require a revision of the Treaty, however complicated it may be.

The European Union will need to make changes to its Treaty without delay to strengthen economic cooperation in the euro area. This will enable citizens to express their vision of the future of the Union.

Germany, however the most reckless on this subject, seems to finally change its mind and the ruling of the Constitutional Court of 7 September is ⁇ not for nothing. If the country that has the most to lose financially from the creation of euro bonds is ready to take the step, we too can only engage in this path.

I will end by mentioning the will of the CDH to see the budget gold rule inscribed in our Constitution, like Spain or Germany. Nevertheless, the application of that rule should be able to be suspended in exceptional circumstances in order to avoid constitutional spending blockage that could result in a fatal blow to the role of the State as a stabilizer of the economy. This golden rule would impose virtuous behavior on governments in times of prosperity.

The CDH has always demonstrated accountability and prudence in budgetary matters – as evidenced by the recognized work of our Secretary of State Melchior Wathelet – considering that the deficits dictated by populist policies constituted a real tax on future generations. The establishment of a golden rule would be an appropriate solution.

I remain convinced that successful European integration requires more Europe, a more present level of federation, real United States of Europe with a strong government and a real budget. What matters is the existence of a common reference on the global chessboard, which defends and unites us all and all.

The CDH will advocate on all fronts so that these projects do not remain at the stage of good intentions.

Yesterday, the stock markets colored blood red. They returned to the level of just after the 2009 economic crisis. Two years in one blow lost in the eurozone.

The situation in the eurozone is worrisome. The response of the leaders, which is put to the vote here today, is necessary, absolutely. One must do something. It is like saving the banks, but it is again insufficient.

In recent days, there have been increasing reports of disasters, with a 91% chance that Greece would go bankrupt. A country in Europe is bankrupt. Europe has failed to convince the markets that it has an effective response to the crisis.

However, a bankruptcy of Greece will have a major psychological and economic impact, not only on the eurozone, but also on a global scale.

If you look at the share of Greek debt in the entire eurozone, that is “only” 4.2%. Today, the essence is not that we are in an airplane with turbulence, but whether the Greek tragedy that lies ahead of us will turn into a Shakespeare drama where at the end everyone is dead, and whether in the game that is now going on, one chooses to move forward or not.

The unhealthy news about Greece’s difficult to avoid bankruptcy and the ongoing problems show that the recipes that the European Commission and the IMF have so far repeatedly raised up, do not work, never work, and have never worked.

The neoliberal recipes of Plan 1 that forced Greece into poverty with unprecedented austerity measures and that broke the engine of its growth, have happily been abandoned. We had warned about it then, but we are now on Plan 2, with a debt restructuring.

Plan 2 takes us time, but again, just like during the banking crisis, a third plan may be needed. It has already been said, it may be too little, too late. Plan 3 will finally have to be one that addresses the systemic crisis in a systematic way, that fundamentally changes the system and that ends the practices that have brought us to this point.

I have already said in the committee that the current crisis is a direct consequence of the implosion of confidence in our economic system. The responsibility for this lies both with those who borrowed above their capabilities and with the financial sector. The lack of supervision by other Member States, which have gone too far, and the logic of deregulation – not only in the financial sector but also in our budgets – also played a role. The level of debt of the private sector should have been much better monitored, and the economic integration of Europe should have been much better monitored on what is done with the budgets. The Greek government’s mismanagement – lax tax collection, irresponsible high defense spending, inefficient public services and corruption – is a major cause.

Today, both customers and lenders, countries and banks must contribute to a solution. It cannot be otherwise. Not allowing the banks to pay would be absolutely unfair. Burden sharing, sharing the burden, is necessary because the condition is the result of a collective mismanagement. The private banks were eventually asked to contribute to the rescue of Greece, which could exchange its old Greek debt for a new debt with longer maturity and lower interest rates, which is important. A haircut of 20%. If those banks were to sell their Greek bonds today, they would suffer a 50% loss. So the banks are doing a good thing with this proposal. Thro ⁇ this Greek tragedy, the silver lining is only for the banks. We can only hope that these banks will take their responsibilities.

The European Union must quickly work towards a stronger integration of economic policies, at least within the euro area. Euro bonds should be introduced. It is not enough to advocate this in this Parliament alone, but the parent parties in the European Parliament must also be unanimous. I note that outside the green parties there are many others – and I look at you, Mrs. Rutten because I have also told you that Mr. Rutten, to whom you just referred, is a fierce opponent of the euro bonds – who are not supporters of these euro bonds.

It does not help us, therefore, to call for solutions only in this body, if we are divided in that other parliament that outlines the direction for addressing this crisis. So, please, let us increase the pressure on those parties who say here today that it is necessary, so that it also happens at that level.

The same applies to the European Emergency Fund, which needs to be expanded. Many are convinced of this, but we missed it in our Plan 2. Please let it happen in Plan 3 and let that voice sound again to Europe, not only in this body.

Unity is needed. Government leaders, as I just said, can choose between two options: step back or jump forward, the Greek tragedy or the Shakespeare drama. It is about choosing between reversing the economic and therefore political integration in the European Union, or removing the shortcomings by additional integration of the economic policy and thus giving the EU a government that has solid fiscal and macroeconomic legs.

Does this release us from our own responsibility to take steps in the meantime? I do not think. Britain has very recently decided to finally carry out a division of banking activities. We have that recommendation of the Banking Commission, however unanimously shared by everyone, to collect dust since 2009. This should be the answer we give to the public opinion today. We have abandoned our role. We have strengthened the firefighters, but we do not want to build the house. I think there is a very important responsibility there.

The Greens stand for solidarity, both within a country and between European Member States. This solidarity must go hand in hand with a sense of responsibility, both with citizens and with states.

Europe needs a lot of things, an immediate and coordinated approach for the national supervisors of credit rating agencies, for example. These rating agencies play a perverse role; I do not need to repeat the whole analysis of 2008. They poured oil on the fire. Despite the rescue plans for European aid and the commitment of the 27 member states to not let Greece fall, the rating was repeatedly lowered. Three rating agencies in this world reflect the euro’s future prospect that is worse than that of Burkina Faso or Bangladesh.

You do not take that for possible! What is the credibility of credit rating agencies that place Greece among the poorest countries in the world, while two years ago they considered rubble loans to be of high quality? It is high time for these last Mohicans to be placed under surveillance and finally regulated by themselves. Rating agencies are the last expression of a blind belief in a rational, invisible hand that proved its bankruptcy two years ago. Rating agencies are the last stubborn flag-bearers of neoliberalism.

Colleagues, for us Greens, the current crisis is a “make or break” moment for the European integration project. We must solve this crisis by re-establishing a sound foundation for both public and private finances. We need to provide perspectives, and so we think we should invest in a green New Deal, which makes Europe the pioneer for building a sustainable society, a society of the 21st century. It is a virtue to see that after the 2008 crisis economists such as Joseph Stiglitz and Paul De Grauwe see the climate perspective as central to the development of a future sustainable economy.

If we fail to move in that direction, Europe will no longer be in danger of being able to ensure the quality of life and social justice of its citizens. Europe becomes irrelevant on the world stage.

I have one last comment. It has already been mentioned halfway. Since the 2007 federal elections, Greens have been asking! and Ecolo in this Parliament and beyond a solution to the community problem, so that the political world can finally address the economic and social problems behind it. We must address the crises that plague the whole world. The unrest in the financial markets and the euro crisis remind us every day again that our families and our ⁇ are best protected when there is a solid government with a solid budget. This is the best deck against financial storms.

Those who ignore these signals ask to be regarded as irresponsible. Whoever wants to shift the global problems to another language group is blind to reality and turns the population a wheel in front of the eyes. System crises require system responses.

We wish the negotiating parties strength to provide a solution in the short term. It is the only way forward. Otherwise we are left with a Shakespeare drama with the end of the European project. We will not let that happen. We go for the positive!

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I have a sense of déjà-vu. The members who sat here in 2010 will probably remember that we held a debate here on 5 May 2010 on additional loans to the Hellenic Republic.

I was not alone here then. I had a certain Rob Van de Felde on my side. However, the grass is sometimes greener on other lawns. I cannot give him any wrong today. I will return to the statements of the time, colleagues.

It is often said that a donkey does not stumble on the same stone twice. However, when I hear the explanations here, there are quite a few stones in the way today. If we look at the past of Greece and if the phrase Fraus omnia corrumpit applies, then Greece should not get half a euro. The country has joined the eurozone on the basis of false statements, false figures and false budgets. Greece has been able to sustain that for ten years, without Eurostat being able to verify anything. Now other countries, which themselves have budget deficits, have to lend billions of euros to Greece. While all over Europe talk about raising the retirement age, Greece has the lowest retirement age in Europe, with an average of about 52 years. One in two people in Greece work for the government.

Ms. Almaci, a neoliberal regime would do differently.

I will now add that today some officials in Greece are paid for a sixteenth month.

Colleagues, I also explained to my colleague Van de Velde that the country has one of the largest black economies in Europe and that tax evasion in Greece is a national sport. Here in Belgium, tax evasion is a matter of legitimate self-defense. In Greece, however, it goes to the extent that an average Greek family spends 1,355 euros per year on corruption.

As early as May 2010, we have been complaining here that Greece was virtually bankrupt and could no longer pay its debts. We also argued that Belgium, with its additional loans, would increase the debt mountain of the said country.

We are now so far. The country then had to cut 27% of its spending in order to address the deficit, and to repay a public debt of 273 billion euros at a 10% interest rate. We would then increase Greece’s public debt by approximately 110 to 130 billion euros.

This has happened in a country with five million inhabitants.

I then wondered if that country had proved a service by giving it even more debt, and whether we would no longer help Greece by moving it out of the eurozone so that the Greek currency could be devalued. Belgium would then borrow a total of 3 billion euros to Greece, but Greece was and is still a market for junk loans. The only remedy is to move the country out of the euro zone to prevent further contamination.

If solidarity becomes stupidity, then ultimately the victim is also damaged. By always having to give more to such aid-dependent countries, I predicted that we ourselves would be in trouble. That’s why we didn’t approve that bill because it wasn’t good for our country, for Europe, for the euro and ⁇ not for Greece. We are now one and a half years later and the only difference is that it was about 273 billion euros then and today about 350 billion euros. The tooth decay that we then permitted has now led to a completely rotten tooth.

In all Member States, similar draft laws are on the table today and it is up to the people’s representatives to decide whether or not to extend the temporary European Emergency Fund. We must be well aware that a vote for this bill is also a vote for the current approach to the euro crisis. This is why I am voting against today. I disagree with the way the euro crisis is addressed today. In recent months, it has become increasingly clear that the approach to the euro crisis has not yielded results. Albert Einstein once defined madness as “continuing to do the same thing and continuing to expect better results.” It turns out that the approach to the euro crisis is at least consistent with what Einstein said at the time; the European leaders declared solemnly that they would do everything necessary to calm the markets. In exchange for promises of future savings, budget criminals were given a pocket of money. The emergency fund is a kind of Bancontact for lazy who are not credible. Uncertainty spread through the banks across the peripheral euro countries to capital-powered euro countries and back again.

Colleagues, Dexia, where the board of directors is full of politicians, with large seat pensions, has today an equity of 10 billion euros and an outstanding debt of 4.3 billion euros, including to Greece, profits.

If a bank today in our country lends money to a small saver who asks for debt restructuring or if a bank gives a loan if it is insolvent, then that bank can be punished, because this is prohibited by law. But when it comes to Europe, when it comes to big questions, we are blind to it.

A great economist, Keynes, not that I follow him, once said that if you owe the bank a pound, you have a problem, but that if you owe a million pounds, the bank has a problem. In that scenario we are today. And who should adjust? In fact, the taxpayer. Here we must decide today to put 10 % of our GDP into the scale for a country that is completely insolvent and for other countries that follow. And what do we do? We remain sick in the same bed, we continue with the measures we took a year ago and that have done nothing.

The bankruptcy of a member state of the European Union is not a small beer and the consequences would be drastic. The method followed by the European leaders may have been worth trying, but, colleagues, that method has failed. Looking back at the past 18 months, we must dare to be aware of the painful reality in which Europe is today.

Greece was the first Member State to resort to emergency loans, then not from the EFSF, and has failed to generate the economic growth necessary to eliminate public debt. The country has even failed to meet the loan terms set by the so-called Troika, by the International Monetary Fund, by the European Central Bank and by the European Commission. What I’m talking about now is just a few weeks ago, there was no progress on two-thirds of the agreed list.

The road out of the valley is further away today. The Greek parliament now openly admits that control over the dynamics of the government debt is fully sought. In order to prevent a bankruptcy, a new help package is needed, a man then asks himself whether Athens is playing with our feet.

Even in economically favorable times, such as at the beginning of this century, Greek government debt continued to rise. I hear colleagues talking about the banks here and I know a lot about them. The Greeks have already increased their public debt, increased their public debt, built up, even in good years, at the beginning of this century. Now they are asking us to be solidary. We can also be solidary in the stupidity, we must provide economic aid here and on the level of the Greeks we are on development aid.

Any country that has a public debt torment of one and a half times the gross domestic product would find it difficult to ⁇ economic growth. In addition, Greece is plagued with an overvalued currency and an underestimated international competitive position. In such a situation, a devaluation of the currency is indicated, but this is, given the monetary union, impossible.

The logical alternative, namely an internal devaluation with drastic wage moderation and price drops, clashes with understandable resistance from the Greek electorate and savings seem impossible within the time frame in which they are necessary. Most euro peripheral countries are in a similar situation with sluggish or negative economic growth, rising unemployment and the prospect of even more austerity rounds. We are all sick in the same bed.

Their debt crisis that we have built up, not by liberal measures but rather by socialist measures – see for example who controls Greece, who controls Spain – is about colossals of public sectors, it is about waste of public funds and it is about an impairment of the entrepreneurial spirit. This is the disease of Europe.

The situation in Portugal is not much better than in Greece, Ireland appears to be on the better hand although the country is still suffering from the consequences of its banking crisis. Meanwhile, contamination waves from the euro crisis have reached the coasts of Italy and Spain. The Club Méditerranée is becoming increasingly dependent on the infusion of money from eurozone countries that in the past followed an orthodox fiscal policy. The cash flow goes partly through the temporary euro-refund fund, the EFSF, and partly through the ECB, which buys junk bonds from disadvantaged countries.

The strategy that Europe follows in itself leads to a monetary pyramid game. This ponzi scheme collapses in the private sector as soon as trust is lost. In the public sector it is about tax money and it takes governments to refuse to pay, in the current crisis it is about the strongest lender and that is Germany. The final game is becoming increasingly clear in sight. Bundespräsident Christian Wulff asked himself last week with an exceptional public demarche who will save the rescuers? Jürgen Stark, the German chief economist and actual number two of the ECB, unexpectedly announced his departure on Friday because he found the ECB's resumption of bond purchases unacceptable.

Last week, the German Constitutional Court stressed that Germany can only contribute to the Greek drama provided that parliamentary supervision of the German government’s European plans is in place. The vote on a possible refusal to pay is likely to follow on September 29 in the Bundestag and then we will probably see a lot.

The decision of the European summit of 21 July 2011 did not result in a fundamental break with the failed approach of the past, but instead continues on the previously grounded paths.

More funding for the rescue fund is not a structural solution. The more the participating countries guarantee themselves, the more their public budgets are under pressure. The EFSF may also be in the sight of credit rating agencies such as Standard & Poor’s.

I regret that Ms. Almaci is gone. I heard her here advocating for euro bonds. I can take away that illusion. Just yesterday, Standard & Poor’s said that if the euro bonds come on the market tomorrow, they will get a CC quotation, even if Germany would bear 30% of the debt there.

We can also talk about another transfer union and about the flow of money from north to south, whether through a European Ministry of Finance or through euro bonds. Europe will probably become Belgium in the big. The fact that the negotiators in our country have failed to form a government for more than 450 days is a sign on the wall that the United States of Europe is an air castle.

Colleague Van der Maelen, I heard you make the comparison with the United States. Mr. Paul Krugman, a great economist – though somewhat leftist, hence I turn directly to you – has made a very nice explanation on this. He said that a monetary union in the United States works because it coincides with a nation with a central government, a shared culture and a common language. The latter promotes, for example, the possibility of moving from one province to another province, which is already a problem in Belgium. What Mr. Krugman says is already a disaster in Belgium today, let alone that it would happen in Europe.

We must dare to question the current policy and not take Europe back. Voters across Europe deserve a change of course.

I do not claim that there is a magical solution to the problem. Ending the crisis will undoubtedly be painful.

The Greek tragedy always ends in tears or with tear gas. Insolvent countries and institutions continue to sink with debt, is not sustainable.

A floating currency can be beneficial to a country. Those who give up their currency actually give up their economic flexibility. With its own currency, one can reduce interest rates and the amount of money to avoid recessions. The currency can therefore devaluate, which automatically leads to wage cuts and increased competitiveness. Europe could then extend the maturity of outstanding bonds and lower interest rates with one-time, drastic debt restructuring, the Argentine scenario, or what Mr. Bolkestein said.

Giving guarantees of €34.5 billion, or throwing 10% of our gross domestic product into the balance sheet, is completely irresponsible. With the emergency fund that now prevails, it remains the creeple that keeps the lamb up. I am not working on this, I am voting against it.

I come from the coast. Many of the fishing people have a very healthy judgment and quite healthy sense. What we are doing here today, I would like to describe it with a kind of fishermen’s Latin, to finish. If one gives money to such disadvantaged countries, then one can just as well throw his money in Oostende in the North Sea and wait in Nieuwpoort until it comes out.

I would like to reassure you immediately, after the various interventions, I will be brief. So many important points have already been mentioned; it is useless to repeat them.

On Wednesday, France approved the European aid plan for Greece. On the same day, the German Constitutional Court validated the legality of this plan. It is now subject to our approval.

At the moment – we cannot cover our faces – Europe is sick. The hemorrhage that concerns her has, in fact, been latent for too many years, to the point that we think it is necessary, today, to save Greece to save Europe. Therefore, we have no choice, even if the crisis we know today is only the punishment of several years of public mismanagement, crap and waste of public money, as well as speculation.

But those who think that the financial situation of Greece does not look at it are mistaken. Europe, as it is currently established, underlies a solidarity of principle between all Member States. Since we wanted Europe as a big family, it is not up to us today to abandon it under the pretext that we would not want to help the Greek people, because this situation no longer suits us.

Who could accept that our immobility would make Greece aware of what the Argentinians experienced ten years ago, during Argentina’s bankruptcy in 2001? Argentina had been in recession since July 1998 and its debt amounted to $141 billion. As always, a catastrophic management of the country, aggravated by corruption, then led this South American country to bankruptcy. Nearly half of the population was affected by poverty; there were then fourteen million poor on thirty-six million inhabitants at the end of 2001; and the unemployment rate officially reached 18.3%. Within a few seconds, the Argentinians had lost most of their savings. It was impossible for them to withdraw money. Strikes and riots followed, as one can imagine.

I do not think that this is the scenario we want for the Greeks, our European compatriots, or for Greece, this faithful pillar, the tenth member to join the European Economic Community in 1981.

The abandonment of the Greek people to their fate, as some would like, would turn to sound the sound of European solidarity at a time when no country, no one, is safe from bankruptcy.

Of course, it is important that this solidarity is not empty and that we do not get tirelessly into the treasures of the same states to allow the mistakes of the past to repeat themselves again and again. Solidarity must be responsible. If it is necessary to help Greece at all speeds, it cannot be done without compensation. Greece and, for the most part, all European countries will have to stand up to the regime and clearly say yes to austerity.

By the way, there are already countries where voters have drawn the painful conclusion but just by saying that quick austerity measures are needed. This is the case, for example, of the defeat of the Portuguese Socialist Party government in the last parliamentary elections. The sanction was, it is remembered, at the height of the crisis that recently shook Portugal. Last June, Socrates made the bitter observation that his fellow citizens no longer trust the left to get through the crisis. In this sense, the victory of the Portuguese Social-Democratic Party was only too much facilitated by the frilance of the left to engage in an austerity project when the country had a cruel need of it. It is the return of the stick after several years of carelessness, wasting public money and sometimes even institutionalized corruption.

But what applies to Portugal or Greece will apply in the near future to the whole of Europe and to Belgium which is, if one wants to admit it, in a situation of virtual bankruptcy due to the disastrous management of political parties which, for electoral interests, have for too many years refused to make the courageous decisions that are necessary.

I hope that the next government, which we have been waiting for too long, will opt for austerity. It will show a courage that we have not seen in our country for a long time.

As I said, the urgency of the situation does not allow us today to start a sterile debate opposing the left and the right. We must react quickly, hoping that it is not already too late. At this moment – we are reminded of it every day – the Greeks are approaching the precipice.

It is important to stop this movement as soon as possible, with the pain of seeing ourselves trained in their fall. We need to learn from the past, but also to move forward. This will only be possible with a Europe of solidarity, but of good faith, in which everyone will admit that efforts are still to be made to dream of a better tomorrow.

We must therefore play the card of solidarity, but this European solidarity must be accompanied by a responsibility of the actors of this crisis. Indeed, financial aid and Community support are not bottomless wells. Public finances will need to be sound and the management behavior of the EU countries will need to be uniformed by common rules of good governance. It is about the future of future generations.

Through the European marriage engaged since 1951 by Robert Schuman, the peoples of Europe owe one another help and assistance. But it is also their responsibility to promise themselves honesty in the operation and conduct of their finances. There will be no longer unity if we do not appear more united in the face of the future.

The dream of one day creating the United States of Europe is not a utopian dream, I am convinced of it. With the strength of will and unity everything is possible. That is why I will welcome the bill aimed at providing financial support to Greece.

I would like to conclude without greeting Mr. President’s excellent speech. At the beginning of each session. It is rare that a SP speech is consistent and responsible. For once, this was the case. So I could only emphasize it, by intellectual honesty.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I would like to thank all the groups that announced a positive vote. It is important for our country to be one of the first European countries to submit this vote and thus announce the correct implementation of the European decision, not only that of 21 July but also of March 2011. I regret some negative moods and abstinences. In this difficult period for the European Union and the euro area, we need to show more courage.

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to describe in length and broadly the content of the project in the committee. I will therefore simply say that it allows us to increase the means of the European Facility and to relax its modalities of action. This will help us in a number of cases.

I would like to remind you that we will not repay 34.5 billion euros; we will give our guarantee for any loans concluded at the European level. So far, we have done the same thing within the International Monetary Fund. We never lost a franc at the time, nor a euro in these operations.

It is important to be truly solidary with the other European countries and with the countries of the eurozone.

We will execute the various decisions correctly. As regards the participation of the private sector in this operation, there is, among other things, an agreement with the banks and insurance companies in Belgium on a participation of 4.5 billion euros, i.e. 96 % of the total Greek loans to the Belgian banks and insurance companies.

It is very important to recall: not only does the public authority do its part of the work, but private entities – banks and insurance companies – will do the same in Belgium.

In conclusion, I would like to thank all the groups that have chosen to support this project. There is still a lot of work to be done at the European level. This is not the last step here and I understand the regrets of not seeing new decisions go further: we will have to discuss so much of fiscal integration and new instruments to implement, such as euro-obligations, maybe one day. We need to move forward step by step.

I hope that the crisis we are experiencing will allow us to take new steps in important progress to be made in the construction of Europe.

I would like to thank you again for the speedy handling of this matter in the committee as well as in the plenary session. If, as planned, the plenary vote also takes place tomorrow in the Senate, we will probably be the second European country to fully approve all these measures.