Proposition 53K2830

Projet de loi portant assentiment au Traité sur la stabilité, la coordination et la gouvernance au sein de l'Union économique et monétaire entre le Royaume de Belgique, la République de Bulgarie, le Royaume de Danemark, la République fédérale d'Allemagne, la République d'Estonie, l'Irlande, la République hellénique, le Royaume d'Espagne, la République française, la République italienne, la République de Chypre, la République de Lettonie, la République de Lituanie, le Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, la Hongrie, Malte, le Royaume des Pays-Bas, la République d'Autriche, la République de Pologne, la République portugaise, la Roumanie, la République de Slovénie, la République slovaque, la République de Finlande et le Royaume de Suède, et au Procès-verbal de signature du Traité sur la stabilité, la coordination et la gouvernance au sein de l'Union économique et monétaire, faits à Bruxelles le 2 mars 2012.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

Jan. 22, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Economic and Monetary Union Treaty on European Union anti-crisis plan budget deficit budgetary equilibrium economic convergence euro area international agreement monetary crisis public debt national budget stability programme

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Voted to reject

Groen Ecolo LDD VB

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 ¶

June 19, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, considering the importance of the draft law that is presented, it is appropriate to give some oral explanation to the report.

The draft approval of the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union was discussed on 5 June in the Committee on Foreign Relations. As explained by Minister Geens, it provides a framework for budgetary matters and for an economic policy. The crisis has made clear that the governance of the euro area needs to be more coherent, with the consent of the national parliaments. A rational budgetary policy is essential.

The Minister addresses the various parts of the text, three of which I would like to highlight. First, there is the golden rule, which stipulates that the budgets of the contracting parties must be balanced, have a surplus or have an annual structural deficit of up to 0.5 % of GDP. Another important element is the annual decrease in debt. If the reference value of 60 % is exceeded, it should be reduced by an average of twenty per year. This provision was already described in the sixpack.

As regards the coordination of economic policies, the draft is not only about budgetary discipline, but also about stability as a guide and about supporting the objectives of growth, employment, competitiveness and social cohesion. This is the introduction of the Minister.

Several committee members put some accents, the main lines of which I propose. You will forgive me for not doing it exhaustively. I refer to the written report.

Colleague Luyckx of the N-VA has quite a few comments on the vague formulations and wants to know what is meant, among other things, by “a rapid convergence towards their respective medium-term objective”.

Collega Vienne of the PS says that the ratification is indeed a very important moment and that it is a compromise, a painful but necessary stage for the management of public finances. She adds that she and her group will ensure that the social interlocutors are involved in the transposition into Belgian law. She advocates for hearings and against financial speculation.

I myself point out that budgetary discipline is very closely linked to the fate of future generations, that we need to pay adequate attention to transnational investments and that it is important to have quick clarity about the efforts that the various governments in our country will make.

Mr. Destrebecq defends the importance of the ratification of the Convention and the approval of the draft, as this allows for a reference to the mechanism of financial solidarity. He is surprised at the claims of other political groups that there has been no dialogue or debate with the civil society, although there is a long period between the signature and approval today. He said there was enough time for talks.

He also supports the idea that the burden should not be transferred to the younger generations and that, of course, everything is related to the common currency.

Ms Temmerman of sp.a. emphasizes that budgetary discipline is very important for the sp.a. group as well, and is pushing for an alternative six-pack in terms of budgetary discipline, fair trade and consideration for social and environmental clauses.

Mr Gilkinet of the Ecolo-Greens Group regrets that there was no consultation with the social partners, as this is one of the key texts of the legislature. He says the treaty is inefficient and unbalanced and that the European Union is heavily interfering in social policy, which according to the treaties is the competence of the Member States.

Mr Valkeniers of Vlaams Belang calls it another important step towards a political European Union. He is talking about a total union that wants to control every aspect of the lives of Europeans. It is a misrepresentation and a misrepresentation of the notion of subsidiarity.

Mr Dallemagne of CDH emphasizes that money that is not there cannot be spent. He says that Belgian politics always seems to revolve around two problems: the community and the budget. Therefore, he expects that the design will be a step towards a solution to those problems. He also points out that there is a certain democratic deficit, but also that the previous treaties were not always followed or sanctioned as consistently.

Mr Vanackere of our Group points out that the implementation of the European Union project is also the EU 2020 strategy, which is not only about the budget, but also about innovation, labour market reforms and initiatives related to a sustainable and social Europe.

Finally, Ms. Almaci, member of the Ecolo-Green Group, points out that the European Union is at a crossroads and that there needs to be more than just a focus on debt burden and deregulation. She also points out that the confidence of the citizens is increasingly in demand and that it is also important that a new convention be convened. It refers to the Lisbon Treaty and the commitments made at that time. However, there has been no separate convention for this design, which she regrets.

It also refers to the assessment made by the International Labour Organization. It says that the cuts are detrimental to employment.

There were also comments from Ms. Gerkens of the Ecolo-Groen Group on the principles and guarantees. She also has questions in the exceptional circumstances described in the text.

According to Mr. de Donnea, chairman of the committee and member of the MR group, the question must be asked about the reasons why states are urging to apply an austerity policy. He, of course, refers to and outlines the historical evolution of debt accumulated in the 1970s to align the standard of living with the more expensive prices of oil and raw materials. He notes that the political debate is right about how the effort should be spread. Indeed, measures with a beneficial social effect in the short term can have very negative repercussions on economic efficiency.

State Secretary Hendrik Bogaert responded to the various questions on behalf of Minister Koen Geens. He also points out that the European social model should not be questioned.

He is also convinced that a European minimum wage is an indispensable tool in tackling competition.

It also notes that the medium-term target for the Belgian-specific structural annual balance was originally fixed on a surplus of 0.5 % of gross domestic product. In this regard, he expressly refers to the passage in the government agreement, which also provides for a recovery of the balance in 2015.

The Secretary of State responds to the comments on how something should be drafted that it is not usual that in the memorandum of explanation it is indicated how the provisions of the treaty are transposed. He points out three possibilities for the future: a constitutional revision, a special law or a cooperation agreement. The Government will examine these possibilities in this regard, without disregarding the deadline of 1 January 2014.

Collega Almaci also talked about the interpretation of some concepts, but I will not be technically involved in this explanation. I am rounding up the report.

I will now explain the position of my group.

It is clear that Belgium is committed with the present draft to not allow the debt mountain to increase unbrokenly. After all, we cannot emphasize enough that every euro we spend on interest for the past, we cannot spend on the future. It is therefore imperative that our social model be safeguarded, including through such initiatives. We must not forget that the debt mountain is a potential interest rate snowball and a risk of large financial turbulence. Our country and government currently enjoy great confidence in the financial markets: interest rates are historically low. However, we should not let ourselves fall asleep. The debt level must go down and we must learn from the past.

You will undoubtedly remember some nefaste one-off measures that will burden the budget very heavily. We must avoid them at all costs. I think of the sale and expensive rental of buildings or the liquidation of saved pension funds. Due to the banking crisis, the federal government has a lot of assets in the banking sector. That was not the central task of the government, but it had to intervene to prevent worse. Therefore, it is also impossible to throw everything on a bunch. It requires a targeted policy, specifically for the anchoring of critical technologies and strategic companies. I refer, for example, to what France is doing in the fields of culture, defence, energy and telecommunications. It is important that such a strategic exercise also takes place in our country.

Budgetary discipline is of course necessary, but it is not enough. More European integration, more solidarity and more efforts are needed to boost economic growth. It requires targeted investments. There is a sky-wide difference between adjusting too tight tights to the economic reality and allowing budgets to dissipate. We see that the accents that the various factions put on this subject are quite different in nature. However, it is important that we agree on the common destiny.

We heard during the discussion of the budget control that the sanitation was too ambitious for one and too fast for the other. I think our group recognizes itself best in the brave middle.

I want to shock no one, but too often it is said that Sinterklaas does not live in Spain, just as we say that Zwarte Piet does not live in Schuman. This is not a black and white story. If negative messages need to be delivered and sanctioned, it cannot simply be referred to Europe and its administration, as if we are not all part of that Europe, as if we as a national parliament are not involved in those processes.

With regard to the EU 2020 strategy, there has already been so much emphasis on the tightness of budgetary orthodoxy that it has almost made a caricature of all other major European long-term programmes, including innovation, jobs, education and a more social and sustainable Europe.

At some point, however, we must come to a mechanism, a debt brake, from the idea that preventing is better than healing. Anyone can preach good intentions, but sooner or later they have to be paid. For us, it is better not to be too late. It would not be nice for future generations to keep the bills down.

Previously, it was said that the future is being prepared, that there are initiatives à la Silver Fund, but when they are accompanied by insufficient funding, that is also not preparing the future sustainably.

It is a pity that the United Kingdom has not been able to fully engage and that one has then had to come up with a vehicle outside of the traditional paths in order to come to a sanitation of the public finances. However, this does not mean that the mechanism has come – fortunately – and that exceptional circumstances can be taken into account.

“Exceptional circumstances” is a knife that cuts on two sides. For one it will be too flexible and for the other too much. I think it is important that this flexibility can only be used when there are very good reasons for it, when there is an absolute need for public financing that leads to sustainable investments that contribute to long-term development. This flexibility can be best used.

In the longer term, one might say that the debt barrier is a little less meaningful. It is true, the government is investing in infrastructure, education, order and security. These are all the engines of the economy. In that sense, we are not entering into populism as it is preached by, for example, Tax Freedom Day. As if public funding or taxes do not represent economic reality or benefits.

The present ratification is a first step. Very important will be the concrete implementation and how we will ⁇ that sanitation now. The deadline is at the end of December and it is of course also closely linked to the institutional debate in our country. The European Commission has requested that agreements between the different governments be reached by the end of December. Of course, there is no hierarchy in Belgium between the different governments. It is, of course, not that by definition the federal government will have to deliver all the sanitation efforts, bear the debt burden, or pay any European fines.

Today’s instrument, the debt barrier, is an additional instrument to ensure that the recovery of public finances is taken seriously by all EU Member States and by all public authorities in this country.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, we have indeed had a fairly extensive discussion on this treaty in the committee.

After the 2008 crisis, a lot of things have come on loose screws. There were considerations on how to keep the budgets under control in the long term. As a result of the financial crisis and the subsequent debt deflation, the European institutions have also been given the powers to force Member States to strengthen budgetary discipline and sanctions.

Europe seeks to improve public finances and the wider socio-economic fabric by, first, reducing savings, second, reforming and, third, investing in smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. It is precisely in this context of solidarity and responsibility that the heads of state and government, other than those of the United Kingdom and the Czech Republic, have reached an agreement on this new European treaty. It creates a legal basis for stricter supervision and largely repeats the recommendations of the sixpack.

That pressure is being increased by Europe is a good thing, colleagues. That additional pressure is needed to give some countries that persist in anger a squeeze in the back. With a PS government alone, we will not get into this country. Even with the instruments that Europe already has at its disposal today, this Belgian government fails to fulfill agreements and has since escaped a financial punishment.

This government was built and received a second seat reconsideration. It is good that Europe is able to cope with the debt burden and is willing to work on debt reduction for the next generations.

According to our group, this treaty is also in line with previous agreements. It is a step in the right direction, towards more budgetary discipline. The crisis has revealed that some governments have spent irresponsibly, without stimulating economic growth, without monitoring social cohesion.

In the face of the new challenges, the demographics, the affordability of pensions, the labour market, this treaty is a necessity. It is also a prerequisite to force countries that are in trouble and receive support from the European Emergency Fund, such as Greece and Portugal, to make responsibilities. Solidarity is not boundless. It only comes with a sense of responsibility.

This agreement, of course, requires support. While budgetary discipline is necessary, Europe must not forget that there must also be a democratic legitimacy. It is important that the European Parliament can fully exercise its right of co-decision and control the additional powers, in particular the control powers.

Today, however, we have the freedom to choose whether or not to agree to the present treaty. It is not a matter of legislation through European directives, but of legislation that we will implement at the national level ourselves.

This also applies to those who point too quickly and too inappropriately to Europe as a sin-bock.

I hope, therefore, that this government will be as persistent in its approval today as it would be on the day of a possible correction from the European Commission. We should not hide behind critical columns in the newspapers.

In addition to the legitimacy, Member States and, from the perspective of the principle of subsidiarity, also Flanders, should be able to continue to carry out budgetary policy in an independent manner. This treaty also has intra-Belgian repercussions, in the sense that all governments in Belgium must pursue a balanced budget and the federal government must not use this debate to increase its grip on the budgets of the counties. States and federal governments are equal partners in these. The golden rule of balance implies that the budgets of the Member States should be structurally balanced and applies to the EU Member States, but in a derivative sense also to the subentities that would exist. How the Belgian objectives are translated into the different district governments is therefore an internal Belgian issue that must be agreed upon. It is obvious that the delay of the sanctioning of the own budget cannot be turned over to other governments. Everyone turns at their own door. The urge or anticipation to reserve budget surpluses to other public authorities should not be used to dismiss responsibility. Each government should be able to decide on the amount of a possible surplus in proportion to the sustainability of its own finances.

Thirdly, and finally, I have already mentioned in the committee a number of uncertainties in this Convention. Its implementation in our national legislation is coming. For us, the uncertainties must be removed in advance. The current goal of a balanced or surplus budget goes beyond the provisions of the Stability and Growth Pact and beyond the six-pack. Before transposing those measures into national legislation, we have asked what it means to quickly converge towards medium-term objectives. It remains very vague about this. What is meant by “the debt level must be significant”? I also refer to the discussion in the committee and the technical questions raised there.

In any case, in order to avoid a European fine, clarification will need to be made swiftly, as before 1 January 2014 the rules and foundations of this Convention must be laid down in our legislation. Ladies and gentlemen, our group will approve this treaty. We will vote for.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, the passage of this text into the Committee on Foreign Relations was an extremely important political exercise as it was marked by a long debate. This long debate, essential for democracy, has marked two camps: those who assume their position, anchored in a strong political responsibility, and those who play the wheel without measuring the complex supports and outcomes of this treaty.

However, this treaty is ⁇ an important element of this parliamentary session. It is an opportunity to reflect on the European construction, on the socio-economic crisis in which we are always trapped, on the impacts of these treaties but also – and above all – on the future of Europe that we want. A Europe that tries to draw itself step by step, walk after step, crisis after crisis.

It is up to us to briefly recall the context in which we are evolving, namely the financial crisis of 2008, its causes and its consequences, which are still, unfortunately, very current. This crisis has also forced Europe to open its eyes to all the abuses, injustice and lack of regulation that have made the casino economy possible. A casino economy where the action of the state, repelled by certain political currents, suddenly found interest in saving a deregulated banking and financial system, which constituted both the backbone of our economy but also a sector ravaged by many evils.

And even though all the lessons have not yet been drawn, in this difficult context, recognize that the European Union and the euro area have taken a huge and difficult path, first to avoid a contagion and then by ensuring effective solidarity between Member States through various instruments of financial support to countries in difficulty.

These rapid and unprecedented developments within our Union – I think in particular of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), banking supervision, enhanced cooperation on the financial transaction tax, etc. This can only be achieved through mutual compromise.

As we know well in Belgium, a path to a political solution is paved with compromises, with concessions, in a game where not all Member States are on an equal footing, both by their size and by the means they put on the table.

The signing of this treaty by our country is also a tangible reflection of the commitments made by the heads of state and government of the euro area during the European Summit on 9 December 2011.

This agreement is not an end in itself, we know it well. It must be seen as a step, a painful but indispensable step on a long path. Thus, Article 14 recalls that participating in the euro involves duties.

In this context, the Socialist Party recognizes the need for a sound management of public finances and some budgetary discipline within the European Union. For the Left, it remains of paramount importance to control long-term debt so that states can regain real capacity for action and investment, ⁇ in order to be less and less linked to markets. The question of the pace of fiscal consolidation is also crucial for the Socialist Party.

Let us consider the substance of this treaty, because I would like to emphasize that what is not in it is as important as what is in it. Whatever some say, I remind you that the official goal of the intergovernmental treaty was to strengthen the economic pillar of the euro area. This Treaty reflects the guidelines of the six-pack legislative package on European economic governance. It has been in force since 13 December 2011. This treaty is therefore nothing new in its content, as the budgetary constraint of the six-pack is already in place.

It is also our political duty to take into account the risks in the event of non-ratification, such as the impossibility for our country to obtain financial assistance from the European Stability Mechanism, as this is conditional on the ratification of the Treaty. Rejecting this treaty would therefore deprive us of a mechanism of crisis management and solidarity for which we fought.

Similarly, the financial and budgetary aspect of a complete isolation of our country cannot be overlooked. I think of course of the interest rates that our country should pay and assume in such a scenario.

This is not a choice of society in our leadership, but rather a will for political responsibility. No one can deny this: not ratifying this treaty would be like sabotaging yourself! On the one hand, we would in no way block its entry into force because it has been effective since 1 January 2013 and 12 Member States have already ratified it. In the event of a financial crisis, Belgium would not have access to the European Stability Mechanism.

Some in the committee have argued that this was not included in the Treaty. Underlining the importance of the Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism as part of a comprehensive strategy aimed at strengthening the Economic and Monetary Union and noting that the granting of financial assistance under the new programmes under the European Stability Mechanism will be conditional from 1 March 2013 on the ratification of this Treaty by the relevant Contracting Party and, from the expiry of the transposition period referred to in Article 3(2) of this Treaty, on compliance with the requirements of that Article. We cannot be clearer!

The Treaty, in its questionable aspects, remains the price of the European Protection Mechanism, which is the MES. Do not make a mistake in fighting. This is not about justifying yourself, but about having a medium and long-term vision without falling into dangerous shortcuts. We do not live in a perfect and enchanted world. It is a pity, but the opposite is the case.

It is very good to be right on its own, but history has shown that only those who remain at the negotiating table and who act concretely to change things make Europe move forward. This is what our prime minister does in the European forums and he has demonstrated it to us in the successive European Council debriefings.

The proactive position, fiercely defended by Belgium, seems finally to be heard in the various European forums.

Beyond this technical ratification and the simple “yes” or “no”, with variable geometries for some according to the parliaments, the translation into Belgian law of this treaty will have to be the subject of broad discussion and will be the subject in our ranks of extreme vigilance, ⁇ with regard to the modalities of transposition of the golden rule. Parliament will, at the time of transposition, have real power of influence. The longer we wait to ratify this treaty, the harder it will be to take full advantage of this opportunity window.

Therefore, if my group votes on this draft, I have made a formal request in the committee, which is explicitly contained in my colleague Roel Deseyn’s report, which I reiterate here and will reiterate again in the ad hoc committee of our assembly: at the time of transposition, a broad consultation with stakeholders and social partners, including trade unions, financial and institutional officials, will need to be organised to highlight the fundamental elements to be taken into account in the transposition texts.

For my group, these future hearings will have to take place within the European Affairs Advisory Committee. In this way, all the Belgian parliamentarians – since the Senators of the Community can perfectly sit there – and Belgian MEPs will be able to debate with these different interlocutors. In this way, each group will also be able to defend and assume its European positions and not in the different assemblies.

Such hearings are necessary, in particular, in the light of Article 13 of this Treaty. Faced with the challenges of employment and growth and the neoliberal approaches that some advocate, we cannot stay with our hands crossed. If the time is for rigour and spending control, it should not be for budgetary fetishism, as is the case with the two-pack.

A text that goes far beyond the budget treaty, a text also – I recall – that the Belgian MPs rejected for this imbalance, which is not the case for the other Belgian MEPs, notably the Greens.

This is not a political tactic, but rather a reminder of facts.

I would like to speak for a personal fact.

Madam Vienne, Mr Gilkinet wants to intervene for a personal matter.

I talked about the Greens.

Madame Vienne, I listen to you carefully. I would like to react because this is the first time you are talking about Greens. Over the past few weeks, we have been subject to a bad controversy due to the two-pack vote. Since I will not intervene on this issue during my speech, I would like to emphasize here that we voted for the two-pack in conscience at European level because the main thing is in the six-pack with the budget austerity measures that we challenge. We consider – here it is a divergence of analysis or opinion; let us simply act it – that the two-pack is rather an improvement of the democratic process that follows the six-pack, in particular, where the two-pack provides that measures envisaged by governments must be motivated by an impact analysis, as is already the case in Britain, even though the latter is not perfect at all points. Indeed, in Britain, an estimate of the impact per decile of income of the measures taken is published, which allows to verify the weight of the effort and how the effort is distributed fairly among citizens. One of the major difficulties of the choices that the European Commission tries to impose on us is the lack of justification. He does not publish his analysis. He does not publish his mathematical models. The two-pack as negotiated and amended by the European Parliament is a tool to try to get more clarity. This is, in any case, our analysis, which is why we voted for this text, while we are opposed to the six-pack, as I will explain at the tribune.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to confirm to our colleague that our analysis differs entirely. Indeed, he has forgotten to mention that the two-pack puts, in some way, this Parliament under custody in so far as our budgets will have to be examined ex ante by the Commission. This is the heart of the two-pack. So we have a real problem to follow you. I can only see that this budget treaty, which contains both the two-pack, about which you are so enthusiastic and which has considerable impacts on parliamentary work, and the six-pack, forms an entity.

So I do not see very well how one can vote for one and not the other, but I let you submit this contradiction to your political consciousness.

While it is, of course, necessary to seriously manage public accounts in order to reduce the burden of debt and thus save future generations, it is also indispensable to put an end to measures based solely on fiscal austerity which so far have failed to find a definitive solution to the crisis. We must focus on real pathways and work towards the establishment of a Europe guaranteeing our social standards and the fight against social and fiscal dumping that benefits the strongest. Unfortunately, in this regard, I feel less political will in Europe.

Indeed, it is against the European paradoxes exacerbated during this crisis that we are fighting. How can we argue that the role of the European and national parliaments should be strengthened, in particular on the budgetary level, while at the same time forecasting more and more European budgetary bugs, leaving no more room for political manoeuvre? How can we validate such European recommendations that do not take into account the socio-economic reality of the Member States facing such constraints? How can the Commission, which proudly pursues its EU 2020 strategy, claim that social objectives remain achievable under these unreasonable conditions? How can Europe remain deaf to social demands and the rise of extremes? How can it be understood that the Commission, guardian of the Treaties, is limited, case after case, to take note of violations of European values?

It is, therefore, a matter of taking responsibility to counterbalance budgetary severity with ambitious measures of economic revitalization and, above all, to revive the European project – and I would even dare to say the dream – European. We can no longer accept European institutions that care about budgetary rigour but deny their social, economic and social responsibilities by locking themselves in a kind of incredible autism.

This is why, on 22 May 2012, my group submitted a proposal on the needs of a EU-wide growth and employment strategy – a text that remains very relevant. We have been advocating for structural solutions for years in order to provide the European Union with an ambitious budget, capable of conducting relief policies.

On the path to this inclusive Europe that we want, Europe cannot decide everything without us, because Europe is us!

For my group, which remains pro-European, Community progress must take into account the specific situation of each country but also stop focusing only on fiscal policy in order to effectively implement a European Covenant for Growth and Employment and the fight against fiscal dumping. Europe must do more than a blind austerity policy, while emphasizing that relance and rigour are not antagonisms. It is for us to adopt a European strategy building an ambitious socio-economic Europe, guaranteeing our high social standards, and, I repeat, in a European Pact for Growth and Employment. Such a pact should enable courageous measures to tackle financial speculation as well as unemployment and precariation, while looking forward (research and innovation, infrastructure, telecommunications, etc.) and ⁇ ining all the objectives of the EU 2020 strategy as a roadmap for European policies.

The Treaty does not address these crucial aspects. It must therefore be supplemented to give the European Union a greater ambition to solve the serious problems we face, such as confidence in the European institutions, economic growth, the need for job creation, fiscal harmony, the financing of the real economy, the fight against speculation and investments in infrastructure and in research and development.

It is not enough to pronounce the words growth and relance, it is still necessary to give them a strong, ambitious, adequate content. Growth must give oxygen to the real economy and its actors and not perpetually question the European social model and in particular our high social standards that have been, I recall, key stabilizers during the crisis in our country.

It is imperative to find that this oxygen that we expect is absent from the European expressions up to the bust that we have faced for several years.

The case of Greece is symptomatic: images of burnt European flags, portraits of stunned but determined protesters, roarings of angry crowds and screams of despair. But, my colleagues, these images coming from Greece should not surprise us. They are the translation of a political current, one that advocates austerity at all levels.

We have repeatedly stressed the inefficiency of these austerity measures. Yes, Greece was sick of its deep deficits, its corruption, its scams, especially the most crazy ones. Yes, it was necessary to correct the shot, but in the last 3 years that major international institutions have imposed an unprecedented austerity regime in Europe, what is the result? They are the Greeks, the people who drink and who dive ever more and more into despair!

I ask myself a question with a bit of irony. And if the management of Greek radio and television was able to justify its closure, why ⁇ ’t we do the same with the IMF, which took 3 years to realize that it had, with Europe, mismanaged the Greek case? Because when we deny our values, our achievements in democracy and in expression, it is not only the budget departure that is at risk, but the death of democracy and the European dream! These images must disappear today. But to do this, we cannot be alone, both at the Belgian and European level. The reality of compromises, political balances are imperative to us.

Nevertheless, this crucial workplace for European citizens must be opened today and without waiting for a new crisis, a crisis that will no longer have purely financial but also economic and social origins. The European Union must move on two legs: sustainable rigour and a boost to growth, investment and employment. It is important to note that since the past year, this message has finally begun to be heard by our various partners, realizing that the path of rigour also requires a relief pact that is beginning to be drawn up at European level.

My colleagues, I will conclude by saying that my group is focused on building a more solidary, competitive and just Europe on a rigorous and sound budgetary basis. We don’t play with political responsibility, we take it on. If we vote for this bill, it does not mean that we abandon our vision of Europe. This is a compromise for us, and not for Europe, which we call for with constance, sincerity and, above all, action.

For us, Europe must be the carrier of positive change and solidarity, but this work on mentalities is not possible by putting itself on the tap. The Europe we want must not only be dreamed, it must be realized.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, we have been very attentive to the debates that took place in the Senate and House on the bill approving the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union, as it is a text crystallizing citizens’ anxiety for an endless austerity, synonymous with unemployment and poor living.

I would like, on behalf of the Reforming Movement, to speak the truth and break this wrong image. This budget pact is intended to solemnly declare our commitment to fiscal discipline. This is a counterpart to the financial solidarity of the European Union.

In this discussion, three points need to be highlighted. First, if all member states of the euro area had met the Maastricht criteria, we ⁇ ’t be in the situation we are today. It is therefore not surprising that discipline is tightening in the face of violations of the rules on respecting the fundamentals of the single currency, efforts that have not been carried out spontaneously for all, far more difficult to implement today, but must imperatively be carried out.

Secondly, fiscal discipline must be the credo of all political parties in our country. Our public budgets, from municipal to federal level, must be drawn up not only on sound macroeconomic assumptions, but also with the proven intention to meet our European commitments.

Third, we need a counterpart to the financial solidarity of the European Union. We cannot want more coordination, more solidarity and deny discipline that is the cement of trust between European countries. In 2012, Europe developed a comprehensive response to the crisis, whether in the field of solidarity, with the establishment of the European Stability Mechanism and the modalities of the ECB’s intervention, to which no one could believe a few months ago, or in the field of growth, with the Pact for Growth and Jobs, endowed with €120 billion.

Is this treaty sufficient to resolve fiscal and monetary issues in the European Union? The answer is no. We are in favor of banking supervision, banking union, and the establishment of a supervisory mechanism that will supervise, under the auspices of the ECB, all European banks. The banking union is a key element for boosting confidence, reducing financial fragmentation and restoring normal lending conditions to the economy.

Do we need budgetary rigour? Again, the answer is no. The reduction of the deficits goes by a boost of growth and the plan, it should be stressed, by Minister Laruelle to ensure easier financing of SMEs is fully in this direction. But, once we accept budgetary discipline, we are justified to call for more solidarity at the level of all Member States.

Dear colleagues, I could be much longer, but I will not be this afternoon because we have already had the opportunity to speak in the committee. In any case, we still have several months to go before the effective transposition of the text. We will therefore have the opportunity, as some wish and I have already heard many colleagues emphasize, to hold hearings, to hold discussions, to have exchanges, to have debates in order to ⁇ the most effective transposition possible.

The Democratic Party will vote in favour of this bill. We will vote for what it is: an indispensable stone for achieving a European budgetary union, and just what it is: the legal means of being able to benefit from the European Stability Mechanism if necessary.

Dear colleagues, I can understand the contorsionism that some sometimes struggle to assume, but I would nevertheless ask you to return to a serene reflection.

Mr. Gilkinet, I have neither quoted nor looked at you; if you take it for yourself, it’s your problem!

The work that will be ours, that is, of all parliamentarians, must be done with wisdom and reason. Indeed, if we succeed, I am convinced that it will be good for Europe, good and good for Belgium and, therefore, good and good for our fellow citizens.

First and foremost, I would like to thank the reporter for his very comprehensive and solid report. I will not repeat what has already been said, but I would like to summarize what this treaty means for our country if we approve it.

We will have to improve the structural balance by 0.75% annually and we will have to reduce the public debt annually by a twenty-third of the deviation from the 60% standard.

Yes, colleagues, budget discipline is also important for us. There is nothing socialist about excessive budget deficits or excessive debt. Indeed, we must not burden the next generations with additional burdens and we must use our public funds economically.

The past years have shown that a euro area with a common currency also needs a common economic and budgetary policy, or at least common objectives and agreements.

We will therefore approve this treaty, but only strict fiscal discipline and tough savings will not help us out of the crisis. What the socialists have said for several years now becomes clear to many people. This one-sided dogma of the European Commission does not work. Our warning that we are threatening to save ourselves in Europe is, unfortunately, today for many European families the harsh reality.

We expect Europe, in addition to the budget, to monitor efforts to combat poverty, unemployment and inequality equally closely. We expect the European Commission to also put a social pact at the heart of its policies.

European policies should not focus only on budgetary objectives. In addition to the budgetary pact, we want a European Social Pact with enforceable objectives on employment, education, innovation, poverty reduction and social cohesion, as agreed in the EU 2020 strategy. We also want to link these objectives with the granting of European funding, so that we also support the policy with the necessary European resources.

The European Commission should also place that social pact at the heart of its policies. In the European Commission’s annual analysis of each Member State, which forms the basis for the sanctioning procedures and recommendations, the European Commission should also take into account the evolution of poverty, employment, investments in education, innovation and the imbalance in social protection between Member States. This means that in addition to the numbers, we also take into account the content and social sustainability of the policies carried out. The link between the national budget and the objectives of the Covenant must therefore be strong, so that there is room for investment in employment, education, innovation and especially in the fight against poverty.

In times of crisis, we must therefore not only focus on savings, but also and above all on investment, growth and jobs. As the colleague already mentioned in his report: that is why we have agreed on a socialist sixpack, together with the PS.

The sixpack consists of a number of elements.

First, a Europe of fair trade, the inclusion of strict social and environmental standards in the European free trade agreements and the increase of customs tariffs if those standards are not respected. After all, the products that Europe imports come from countries with low wages and low taxation and where environmental standards are much less stringent. This creates a disloyal competition that crushes our industry and leads to job losses in our companies.

Second, the introduction of a European minimum wage of 60 % of the median wage in each European country as a first step towards a process of social harmonisation. In fact, the absence of a minimum wage or very low minimum wages cause social dumping within the European continent, which undermines wages and only exacerbates the recession.

Third, a responsible monetary policy of the European Central Bank. The financial crisis caused a dramatic rise in interest rates, further increasing the burden of public debt in the European countries already heavily affected by the crisis. In this context, we were able to clearly define the limits of the ECB’s exceptional statute. Unlike the U.S. Central Bank and the Bank of England, the ECB is not allowed to buy government bonds. In order to reduce the spreads, the ECB was forced to intervene indirectly by buying government bonds from the secondary market, i.e. private investors. This is an absurd situation. The statutes of the ECB should therefore be revised so that the ECB can intervene directly to assist States.

Fourth, a distinction between investment banks and commercial banks. This has been discussed several times, both in the European Parliament and in the European Parliament.

Fifth, a European industrial policy. Since 2008, European industrial production has declined by 10 % and three million jobs have been lost in the sector. I think of Belgium, where examples such as Ford Genk and ArcelorMittal have shown that Europe urgently needs an industrial policy. That industrial policy should not only translate into a recovery of the European economy and a European coordination of research, innovation and information, but also into an action plan for these industries. European support is needed for national investments in innovation and for the allocation of revenues from innovative financial instruments.

Finally, colleagues, the tax on financial transactions and financial harmonisation. As some European countries are reluctant to impose a tax on financial transactions, a number of willing countries have decided to overcome the difficulty through enhanced cooperation, with rules that would only apply to those countries.

For example, the 27 EU finance ministers have already authorized 11 countries, including Belgium, to launch such a financial transaction tax. This is a first, very important step.

However, in order to avoid displacement of transactions and to strengthen the fight against speculation, it must be extended to the whole of Europe. We also need to move towards a general tax harmonisation, for example by introducing a minimum tax for companies.

Colleagues, this was briefly a summary of the plans we have for the future of Europe. I would like to reiterate that budget discipline is important. We will approve the draft. But, colleagues, a social pact will be needed if we want to get Europe out of the crisis.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, last week Tuesday, June 11, many people with an even worse character than I – well, those who exist – have swallowed themselves in their coffee or their pint when they heard that the government would almost immediately remove the VRT from the ether. Unfortunately for them it was not about the VRT, but about the ERT. One letter makes a world of difference. It was indeed the Greek state radio and television broadcaster, which was taken out of the ether by the Greek government.

According to the government spokesman, the official reasons are corruption and mismanagement. The ERT was, I quote, “the symbol of a unique lack of transparency and incredible waste.” Admit, it must have been there, at the Athenian Reyerslaan.

Immediately, among all well-thinking and politically correct people throughout Europe, the protest began over so much lack of democracy, over so much courage and hardness. Even the colonel regime, which had already been wrecked for forty years, was dragged into it.

For the first time since the catastrophic savings that the entire Greek population willingly has been pushed by the throat of the EU for more than a year now, and that meanwhile desecrates the whole country, to be able to belong to the Euroclub, while, as everyone knows, Greece should not have joined from the beginning, there was outrage in the rest of Europe. Or were there crocodile trees? Public media would seem to guarantee democracy. Therefore, one remains there.

Also for the first time in the history of the eurocrisis and of the solidarity imposed on the North with the South, in which the North transfers tens of billions of euros, including to southern banks, and of which the southern European today unfortunately sees no benefit, for the first time since those financial dictates, the EU Commissioners and responsible, Olli Rehn, rattled themselves in all sorts of curves without having to admit that they are the basis of the decision of the Greek government to remove the ERT from the ether. If it wasn’t so hypocritical, it would be almost injurious.

Admitting, saving and dismissing workers and pushing people into poverty can be done at all levels and sectors, but is it not done by putting 2,900 men and women of the state broadcaster on the streets for corruption and mismanagement? We did not want that.

Colleagues, more than any measure that was imposed in recent years by the EU on Ireland, Greece, Cyprus, Spain, Portugal and Italy – the list is going to be long – it proves getting out of the ether of the ERT that the EU today stands for. The monetary situation, the social – or I must say with some colleagues the associal – situation in the EU, the EU’s rücksichtslose one-size-fits-all confusion with the financial situation of the different Member States and, as a result, the increasing transfers from North to South, prove every day more and more that the authors of the book Europe wankels are right. Europe was kidnapped by the European Union.

The Flemish Interest and I stand here for Europe, let there be no misunderstanding about it. We are for more Europe and therefore less Europe.

The Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union, the Fiscal Compact. At the vote tomorrow, we can approve or not, although I do not have any illusions about it. The treaty is full of words for another step toward a political union or, as the European diplomats in Brussels are committed to call it, a total union. Per ⁇ the term “total union” does not sound very familiar to you, as you will rarely read or hear it in our similar media, the ERT – sorry, the VRT – including. The EU leaders look forward to using that term, as it, like the equivalent term “United States of Europe,” absolutely leaves nothing to the imagination about where we are heading. Every day, however, it becomes more clear what the intention is: creating the total union through the so-called salamit tactic. Although these are not all official terms, we know of the Economic and Monetary Union, banking union, tax union, Schengen, social union and political union. It rains unions in the EU and which European actually sees through the woods the trees yet? In my view, there is only one good term for the current Union, the European Union, and that is, the Debt Union. Thus, all these unions together must form that total union.

It is clear, my colleagues, that the EU wants to control every aspect of our lives. In EU documents, subsidiarity is one of the most misused and abused words. The EU’s supposed respect for subsidiarity has now become a very bad joke due, among other things, to the introduction of the euro. As long as Europe was on a human scale, that is, as long as Europe was on intergovernmental cooperation, I think there was no dirt in the air. However, the EU has created a supranational level, an intermediate, an intermediate phase, a fish-and-meat situation, which is impossible to sustain. An eurosceptic socialist in the Netherlands – who exists – the PvdAer René Cuperus, recently talked in Knack about a total lack of state-law hygiene. He also meant that the current intermediate form in Europe is inherently unstable and so we must return to a free European cooperation on a human scale, which respects sovereignty, democracy and the rule of law, or we join in a blind and unrealistic feasibility thought of the EU by creating a new people in a new state, the United States of Europe.

It has long been possible to keep this ultimate goal, the European superstate, hidden from the citizens, but it is nothing more or less than a wet dream of anti-nationalists and Belgians who, as Herman Van Rompuy once said, rightly see the EU as a dam against Flemish autonomy. Abraham Lincoln once said, “You can fool some people all the time, and you can fool all the people all the time, but you can’t fool all the people all the time.”

It is then seen that the European citizen is increasingly turning away from this European project and that, as Commissioner Reding put it, there is no sense of EU citizenship. Today, this has become more clear than ever.

A recent study by renowned U.S. research agency Pew shows that Europeans have never had less confidence in the EU. Less than half – still just 45% – have a positive view of the EU. Only 28% of Europeans believe that European integration has strengthened the economy. There is therefore a clear trend. Since 2009, the agreement for more European integration, and thus more EU, has only declined.

In light of the huge sums that the EU spends on propaganda, that can be called much-promising. The French daily Libération, again a source that cannot be directly suspected to be on our side, speaks of “L’Europe, une histoire d’amour déçu”. The only mistake they make again is the equalization of the EU with Europe.

Unfortunately, this total union is becoming more and more a totalitarian union. Was it not the President of the Eurogroup, Jean-Claude Juncker, who confirmed Helmut Kohl’s undemocratic EU strategy in 1999? I will quote him for you. Unfortunately, this quote still has no actuality value.

“We decide something. We then put it in and wait some time to see what happens. If no misfortune follows, no rebellion breaks out – most do not understand what has been decided – then we go a little further. Step by step until no return is possible.”

But, I hear you say, the EU does realize that European superstate in a democratic way. Well, then read the recent book Representing Europeans by the American political scientist Richard Rose, which shows that the European institutions are only very limited in responding to European citizens.

Most European institutions do not represent the citizens and, unfortunately, do not have a direct connection with the citizens. There is indeed a European Parliament elected by citizens, but we do not go further. The only sanction that citizens can impose on the EU is to send the MEPs home. Richard Rose calls this pre-democracy. Compare it with Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan who restricted democracy to one election every so many years.

My socialist colleagues, who are slowly waking up today and opposing at least in front of the gallery the increasing budgetary interference of the EU, should consider this calmly and seriously.

Ms. Vienne, in one of your previous presentations in the plenary session, you have drawn lesson against eurocritics and against the way they hostage or even extortion the EU. For me, it is clear in this story who are the hostages and the hostages.

It is, of course, not about proposing with a lot of media poeha our own socialist sixpack and yet approving the present draft law, and thus the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the EU, based on the reasoning that if we do not approve it, then Belgium will never be able to invoke EU solidarity itself.

This is an aberration. It is one or the other. If, first of all, we were to make sure that we, like a good housefather, were in order with our state household and our finances, then we would have no need and no addiction to lie on a financial transfer infusion, not on the Flemish, but also not on the EU infusion. I therefore agree with the call of State Secretary Bogaert in the committee that we should put our finances in order as soon as possible.

But, Mr. Bogaert, you know as well as I do that this too will in no way temper the interference and the drive to more power of the EU. However, it was predictable. When the euro was introduced in 2002, Romano Prodi was the President of the European Commission. I give you all this only to refresh the memory. He said, “The most difficult moments were predictable. When we created the euro, my objection as an economist was, and I also discussed this with Kohl and with other heads of state: how can we have a common currency without sharing financial, economic and political pillars? The wise answer was: for now we have made this leap forward, the rest will follow.” Prodi also says literally: “So it was clear that this crisis would come.”

My colleagues will soon go deeper into the content of the treaty we are talking about here today. The so-called Fiscal Compact is one of the wheels in this megaloman experimental project. You may still remember how my party alone opposed the ESM, the European Stability Mechanism, in which the stronger Member States irrevocably turn up for the weaker. Through the ESM, the EU de facto becomes a North-South transfer union, in which the Flemish and North European taxpayers must undergo a supranationally organized billion transfer. At a time when there is apparently not even enough money to give our own elderly a quiet evening of life, at a time when more and more people of us fall out of the boat, billions are being given away to other Southern European countries. In turn, they unfortunately do not see the impoverishment decrease, but, on the contrary, they see the impoverishment increase in fast-train shipping. That is the paradox of this system: those countries can and should not, or no longer, take their own designated, tailor-made measures.

The functioning of the ESM Treaty depends therefore on the current Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union. There is therefore no hair on our head that thinks of approving this treaty. As a pro-European party, we stand with full conviction against this treaty.

On the contrary, we should take the example of England and the Czech Republic, which refused to sign this worship contract. According to this contract, the European Commission is granted full authority over a Member State in case of a deficit exceeding 3 %.

Then it is swallowing or stinging, or maybe both, with fines as a stick behind the door. Let us not forget that Belgium has just escaped such fines.

This so-called Fiscal Compact is another dictates of the European Union, which does not take into account the specificity of the Member States. Flanders do not need it. One size fits none: how often should wise economists repeat that?

With this treaty, we will give the full control of public finances to the European Union. It is another salami of the ongoing European power grasp on the road to a total union.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the Flemish Belang is therefore of the opinion that this treaty is such a fundamental intervention in our lives that the voter through a referendum must finally take action. It was wellets. The wild and unsuccessful EU adventure has now lasted long enough.

David Cameron has already given a semi-fortunate kick in Britain, by promising the British in 2017 a referendum. We also need to hold a binding referendum on the future of Europe. The Flemish Interest, as explained extensively, is not about the European Union, ⁇ not about the direction in which the European Union is evolving and about its lack of legitimacy.

Is it logical that here in this country for every transfer of powers downwards, to the regions, we need a constitutional revision, but that such transfers upwards, to Europe, can pass without even a constitutional revision?

We believe in a prosperous and peaceful Europe of free and sovereign nations working together through intergovernmental treaties. Only in this way can we prevent the totalitarian union and create a true sense of European citizenship.

We say no to this European Union and no to this treaty.

First of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur. Roel Deseyn, for his excellent summary of the extremely rich and interesting debate we had at our committee on this Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union.

As other colleagues have already said, this treaty, which my group will ratify tomorrow, does not impose on us additional control and governance rules on the part of the European Commission. It just confirms the rules we have already adopted as part of the six-pack and two-pack. It is also important to remember that this treaty has already entered into force on 1 January denier. It confirms the willingness of twenty-five member states of the European Union, including Belgium, to continue their efforts in addressing public deficits, to continue the correction of the macroeconomic deficits that have hurt us so much, to confirm the willingness to no longer spend, in the future, without limits the money we do not have. In other words, it’s about ensuring that our children don’t have to bear excessive burdens, that they can make their own choices, invest in their own priorities, in their future, without having to endlessly assume our liabilities.

But it should also be recalled that this strictly budgetary dimension of the reform of the Economic and Monetary Union must not obscure the other three dimensions, which are equally important for the HCR, in the economic and political construction of Europe. These are, first of all, growth and employment policies, in particular those contained in the Growth and Jobs Pact adopted in June 2012 at the initiative of Belgium, which aims to inject more than 120 billion euros into the real economy. Furthermore, we can be glad that the education of unemployed people, and especially young people, will be the subject of much more ambitious policies on the part of Europe in the future. In this context, it can also be considered that the ‘Youth Guarantee’ initiative that the Commission has just launched is extremely important. Through it, all EU countries will have to implement such a guarantee in their national policies. Everyone must take initiatives to ensure that all young people aged 25 and under are offered quality employment, continuing training, apprenticeship or an internship within four months of losing their job or leaving formal education. This is just an example.

These policies will still have to rise in power. The CDH is ⁇ attentive to the implementation of this pact, which must be subject to as rigorous control as the fiscal rules we will ratify tomorrow.

In this context, the CDH also advocates for the implementation of a truly forward-looking European industrial policy because the best social policies will truly succeed only if it is accompanied by a major industrial policy, an economic policy and an even more ambitious recovery plan. At the express request of Belgium, these issues will already be discussed during the next European Council meeting at the end of this month.

There is, then, the development of a genuine European tax policy to ensure a fair contribution of all citizens and ⁇ to public financing and to prevent the richest, most mobile or most clever ones from playing the tax competition between states to pay less taxes. Recent developments, whether in the area of the financial transaction tax, which was decided to be introduced on 22 January 2013 by eleven Member States, or in the area of the abolition of bank secrecy in all countries of the European Union, are clearly going in the right direction, as they enable, in particular, a better fight against tax fraud. The social dimension of the Economic and Monetary Union is also a priority for the CDH and, in part through its action, Belgium has given an ambitious contribution to the President of the European Council Herman Van Rompuy to ensure social minimum levels throughout the European Union and to prevent unacceptable social dumping.

Furthermore, in order to prevent the recurrence of the causes of the current crisis, banking supervision has been deeply strengthened by the creation of a genuine European banking union that will allow for a more serious and better coordinated banking supervision by the European Central Bank.

Finally, the CDH has always advocated, and will continue to do so, for the strengthening of solidarity between the Member States and between the Regions of Europe. This is the case with regional development funds, whose new 2014-2020 programming is being developed. This is also the case with the European Stability Mechanism, which can lend to states that are no longer able to finance themselves on the markets. Even better, it will soon be able to recapitalize directly the banks in difficulty, which will avoid the States concerned from having to do so and then put themselves in difficulty. However, and several colleagues have recalled, it should not be forgotten that if Belgium does not ratify the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance, it will not be able to benefit, if necessary, from this Stability Mechanism.

The CDH does not want to stop there. We want to go further in terms of solidarity by advocating, among other things, for government bonds issued and guaranteed by Europe.

In conclusion, I believe that, above all, we should not be mistaken about fighting or goal. The legitimate struggle against austerity and for growth and employment requires advancing the political, social and economic integration of the eurozone. However, this struggle does not mean a refusal to vote on the Treaty. It contains virtually no new rules and does not affect the power of the parliaments of the Member States to decide on the composition of their expenditure and revenue. Above all, the budget treaty is only a piece in a much larger puzzle, which tries to reconcile the necessary responsibility of States and the indispensable intra-European solidarity. This is also a principle that has always prevailed in the political action of the CDH, regardless of the level of power. Furthermore, let us not forget that we are not alone: Europe has built itself and can only build itself through successive compromises, which must be agreed by all our partners in the euro area. Therefore, for the cdH, all the pieces of this puzzle are fundamental.

Therefore, my group of course intends to fight for strengthening growth and employment policies, the fiscal and social dimension of the Economic and Monetary Union and the instruments of solidarity in order to ⁇ as quickly as possible a true political union, with direct democratic legitimacy and a federal budget capable of financing spending of common interest and ensuring in the best way the solidarity between each of the Member States – rich as well as poor, growing as well as in recession. It is for this struggle that we must mobilize. It is in favour of this goal that a democratic dynamic for the future should be triggered. Let us avoid wasting our energy by attacking windmills. For the CDH, this should be the fundamental challenge of the European elections in May 2014.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, the debate that will be held is really important, almost one of the most important of this legislature according to our interpretation, ⁇ the state reform put aside.

First, two remarkable preliminaries in our eyes.

First, I will repeat that environmentalists are convinced and militant Europeans. Indeed, Europe has brought us peace; it is a magnificent project of cooperation and dialogue between peoples.

Beyond this peace, Europe can bring us a better shared prosperity, which would rely on a different, more sustainable economic development, with a decisive stake on efficiency and energy autonomy; it would enable everyone to live in dignity, which should be our goal for all in this Parliament. These objectives are broadly contained in the principles of the EU 2020 framework that we support.

Second, although we are convinced and militant Europeans, we are also critical and disappointed Europeans. We are critical and disappointed by the way the European Commission has chosen to respond to the crisis we are experiencing.

It is often stated that this crisis is caused by bond debts, the public finances of the states. Therefore, it is the enormous responsibility of the financial sector that is obscured, that of all those who have not regulated or supervised it. The crisis we are experiencing is the responsibility of speculators. The path chosen by the European Union is a blind path, contrary to all economic evidence: it is that of austerity and social regression.

That is why we resist this austerity project and we advocate for a different model, for a more democratic Europe, setting as a very short-term priority this reform of the financial sector that we expect since 2008, with the separation of banking, a reform that should move less hesitantly towards the implementation of a tax on financial transactions. For, Mr. Dallemagne, the road is still long: it is the Echternach procession!

In fiscal terms, this reform should also aim at harmonisation because deregulation, the dumping that exists today, benefits multinationals, damages SMEs and working citizens who cannot relocate their income.

We want a social Europe, with upward rather than downward harmonization, like those who would like to import these German mini-jobs into our country. It would be useful to establish social and environmental rights. The ongoing iron arm with China regarding photovoltaic panels is one of the first signs in this direction. We need a strategic plan, an industrial plan that leads us to a working economic model. But this is not what is being proposed to us, it is a widespread austerity and we challenge it.

First and foremost, we are European persuaded but critical and disappointed.

Environmentalists are responsible budget managers. We fight unnecessary spending, especially in tax matters – I mean all gifts given without compensation to multinationals –; we fight waste wherever we are, especially in energy matters – because the energy that is not consumed is unspent money and unproduced pollution; we want modern and prospective management. Where we are in responsibility, we try to overthrow the habits we have acquired.

Environmentalists are not the ones who invented the policy of the gaffler who, in the 1970s and 1980s, allowed budget deficits to flatten and dug up the debt of the state, which is now undergoing as a burden; they are also not the ones who have allowed banks to speculate either when it was necessary to appoint administrators, or when it would have been necessary to play the role of regulator and controller.

But as budget managers, we also consider that there are priority spending areas. I think of teaching and education and that is why we fought, under the rainbow government, for a refinancing of the Communities, and especially for what concerns us in the French Community. I think of solidarity between people, because we must preserve our social model, the first net against poverty, and promote greater equality among citizens. I also think of budgets related to the economy of the future: the Marshall Plan 2.Green in Wallonia and its equivalent in Brussels. Let’s also mention all the research and development expenditure, all that can help small and medium-sized enterprises and craftsmen, which represent the unlocalizable employment.

This is why austerity is not a dogma in our eyes. Between two budget trajectories, we will always choose one that leaves room for investment and preserves this model, contrary to the recent attitude of the federal government to the proposals of the Supreme Council of Finance.

I will come to the text, which is one of the most important that we will have to ratify in the course of this legislature. Too often, European treaties pass like a letter to the mail, either because they are too complex, or because there is no political will to put them on the agenda under acceptable conditions and to debate them seriously.

This is not an exception to the rule, and for months, if not years, environmentalists have been fighting both in the European Parliament, in this place and in the relevant federal entities for this issue to be included on the agenda. We wanted to conduct this debate in the European Parliament by submitting hundreds of amendments to the texts voted and by displaying a frank and determined opposition to the six-pack. We requested for Belgium a popular consultation on this text, which would have been preceded by an information campaign and spaces of debate with civil society, because there is nothing worse than paternalism in the construction of democratic projects thinking that an elected knows everything better than the citizen.

We also wanted, in response to their repeated request to all the parties represented in this meeting, that our Committee on Foreign Relations, which dealt with the subject, invites the social partners to express their views on this treaty before the vote on its ratification.

These social interlocutors have had the merit of studying this text. They are concerned about its impact on public finances, on social policies, on the ability to invest in future policies. It was just normal and logical to accept to hear them. The timetable enabled this.

We regret that no political formation represented in this parliament has found it appropriate to respond to this request, which we have supported. It is not in this way that we build mutual trust, a dialogue that would maintain a social climate favorable to the proper functioning of the economy. Refusing the debate is never a solution!

As for the Treaty itself, I have heard a lot in the mouth of my colleagues: it would bring nothing new; it has already been voted by others; if we did not vote for it, a great misfortune would fall on our heads!

The main objective of this treaty is to establish a budget gold rule, that is, a carcass that would lock states in a strict logic of austerity. This text actually poses different problems.

First, this logic is not effective. More and more economists say this, including repentant liberals. There is no one from the VLD present to hear it, but the best spokesman for the current heterodox economists who challenge the authority is Paul De Grauwe, a former VLD senator. He explains very well that austerity slows down the economy, breaks confidence, generates recession and puts the countries first concerned, those who have a debt to the rest of Europe, in the lasting inability to repay that debt. Austerity is counterproductive. Today, some of the IMF experts, who were the heroes of the austerity logic, admit that they were wrong. Austerity is ineffective.

Look at what is happening in Greece today. We did not deal with tax fraud. We did not attack the privileges of some, the army, the Orthodox Church, and we sowed despair. Do not tell me that this is what will make this economy efficient tomorrow and allow the Greek citizens to straighten their heads.

Second, the proposed solution is unbalanced. It focuses on budgetary aspects, in particular on spending, and states that balance must come from a compression of spending. New recipes, there can be no question if we follow Europe!

In doing so, we deny other debts: social and environmental debts, which are equally important to us. If we allow, within a balanced budgetary framework, to further increase social inequalities and create new environmental problems, the expenditure will be much larger in the future. We do not want to leave this to our children either.

The Commission, on the other hand, is silent in all languages about other forms of imbalances, ⁇ social ones. I have repeatedly cited mini-jobs in Germany, energy imbalances, tax competition between states, including ours, who only know how to invent to compete with the neighbor and ultimately put him in trouble.

Third element: the budget gold rule is socially dangerous. This is clearly the alibi of a neoliberal agenda already widely applied in Belgium. The President of Mr. Mr. Michel, very recently, did not hide it, in the newspaper L'Avenir, declaring that this crisis was a real opportunity to implement his program in terms of pensions (reduction of pensions rights of temporary workers and women), unemployment (degressiveness of unemployment benefits, exclusion of job seekers and transfer to the income of social integration), linear decrease of expenditure. This is a social regression agenda that we regularly challenge in this tribune. We did this at the time of the pension reform; we denounce the decrease in the envelope for the linking of social benefits to welfare and we are concerned because, collectively, we have never been as rich as we are now – look at what appears on the savings accounts of the Belgians! At the same time, there has never been so much poverty. And this will be even more true if we blindly follow this agenda, which will generate even greater costs when it comes to addressing the problem of school leaving, health or safety issues. Austerity affects especially the weakest.

The fourth problem that this treaty poses to us is that it was largely improvised. Let us remember its history: it was imagined at a time when an emergency solution for the Greek state had to be found, when a European solidarity mechanism had to be invented. Mrs Merkel, accompanied by Mr. Sarkozy was unacceptable without a counterparty. It was then that the golden rule was adopted in all European states.

No one has dared to contradict the Merkel-Sarkozy duo, afraid of being shown with the finger, ⁇ by the financial markets. Our Prime Ministers Yves Leterme and Elio Di Rupo agreed to sign these commitments on our behalf. Such radical measures cannot suffer any improvisation. They must be subject to comparative analysis. Find me a country in the world that, having applied this logic of austerity, has made progress in terms of social justice and employment!

I come to the last point of criticism. This treaty is undemocratic, you will admit, in the procedure and in the outcome. This is first and foremost a decision of two European heads of state. The debate in this Parliament was held in the Committee on Foreign Relations and it is now held in a plenary session. But is this a real debate? Has it been preceded by hearings, for example from the Plan Bureau to explain what it thinks of austerity, economists or trade union representatives? While this treaty will have a very significant impact on future budgets, has it been preceded by a popular consultation? Nothing of all this, of course. We try to do this with the utmost discretion. This treaty will also have an impact on the democratic exercise by excellence that is the preparation and voting of a budget. We already see this today with the regular recommendations of the European Commission and the agenda it imposes on us. The states and entities that make up them are becoming less and less masters of their budgetary destiny. Therefore, we should not be surprised by the decay of democracy.

You have understood, we are very critical of this treaty, which we consider unbalanced, inefficient and undemocratic. In addition, we are convinced European federalists. We must now use all the interstices of European law, all the margins of interpretation, all the possible mobilization to try to reverse the course of history. The next step after this ratification will be the transposition of the text.

I asked very specifically, in the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Secretary of State, Mr. Bogert, present here, who represented the Minister of Finance. I wanted to know if the principles of transposition had already been debated within the government, if a goal had been set, if Belgium intended to hold an offensive, militant position in order to defend a very precise point of view in Europe and, ⁇ , be a foundation of resistance to this logic of austerity that we denounce. This discussion has, in any case, taken place in the governments in which Ecolo participates, with the aim of trying to get ahead or, in any case, to catch a lag in comparison with the European machine. A political agreement has been reached on this subject with principles that we consider essential.

It must be reaffirmed to Europe that the field of social policies belongs, in accordance with the Treaty, to States and that it is out of question, despite the repeated knock-outs, to question the mechanism of automatic indexation of wages, which probably does not have all the qualities, but which allows to fight against wage deflation as well as structural and sufficient financing of social security, in anticipation of a real fiscal shift. Europe must respect the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality in its choices much better – our Parliament must pay more attention to them. The reform of the financial sector must be an absolute priority. We need to stop talking about the financial transaction tax and implement it. There is a need for social and environmental harmonization. It is also necessary to reaffirm the will of this government and – I hope – of all those who will follow it to consult with social interlocutors on the important choices made. This is part of a tradition in Belgium. It is a guarantee of socio-economic stability. We cannot decide without prior study using, for example, the tools that we have at our disposal (the Plan Office). It is necessary to stop making decisions based on emotions or external impulses that would not be justified.

Hence our commitment to the principles of the two-pack, which asks the European Commission to be more explicit about the reasons why it advocates for certain policies and their impact per decile. In other words, it is a question of who will bear the burden of the budgetary measures imposed. We need to develop a culture and mechanisms for ex ante and ex post assessment on the social and environmental level, incorporating indicators such as the Gini coefficient, which makes it possible to measure the distribution of wealth, or gender issues to which we are very attached. For us, these elements are as important as the budget gold rule.

We must regain balance, not only through a linear, blind and inefficient reduction of spending, but also by reflecting on new revenues by making contributions to those responsible for the crisis and by putting the effort on those with the widest shoulders.

It is necessary, and essential, to better define what exceptional budgetary circumstances are. We believe that the consequences of the financial crisis, namely the slowdown of the economy, constitute an exceptional budgetary circumstance which should be taken into account when choosing the budgetary trajectories in order to preserve the means of financing in favour of the social and the redistribution of the economy.

Finally, we believe that Keynesian-style investment spending, which tries to prepare the future and capture the jobs of tomorrow and which modernizes our economy, should also be exempted by not being accounted for in the deficits of the states.

We believe, gentlemen Secretaries of State, that another path is possible in Europe, which is more respectful of existing social models – at least in Belgium – and oriented towards sustainable solutions. We would have wished that this debate could be held with the social partners and that the government takes clear commitments so that the transposition act provides all the necessary safeguards to ensure that the pursuit of budgetary balance – which is not an end in itself but a means among others – does not take place at the expense of other objectives, in particular in social and environmental matters. In this case, we have received no assurance from you. We regret it and denounce it.

Mr. Speaker, Dear Secretaries of State, Dear colleagues, following my colleague, Bruno Valkeniers, I have to say, with all humility, that I believe that the European project does not receive the attention it deserves. I will explain further. I think the debate has been too one-sided in recent years. It is precisely because the critical voices are getting more and more grounded that I find that the Eurocrats, the aristocrats from Brussels, are increasingly required to explain and motivate their decisions to the public. In many countries, indifference to the European Union has turned into feelings of resistance and rebellion. Europeans see the European Union as a threat to their own identity. The ever louder protests against the way this European Union works are forcing the euro-adepts to come out of their ivory towers and be accountable.

Therefore, I find it right and legitimate that an increasing number of citizens across the European Union are increasingly questioning the added value of this European Union. Southeast Europe or the southeast of the European Union are complaining about the imposed austerity policy of the Troika to put their financial and fiscal accounts in order. The north of the European Union believes that there are limits to solidarity, with more and more tax money being pumped into the system. That gordian node will not be disappointed by the politicians of the European Union. There is no effective European governance. That is the scattering state, the spaghetti in which this European Union lies.

If I say that the debate has been unilateral in recent years, it is mainly due to the focus on cooperation. That is not the point, my colleagues. The discussion is not about cooperation. No one is against cooperation, trade, international consultation and exchange programmes in all possible fields and fields. Everybody is in favour of it, including the Flemish Interest.

It is only true that there is increasing criticism of the way this cooperation is shaped within the framework of the European Union.

The European Union, colleagues, is not the United States of Europe. It is also not a state. It has authority in some areas, but in other areas it does not. This is what makes the EU unstable. Therefore, the europhiles, the euromaniacs, the eurocrats and I know many other EU boboes want to give more and more powers to the European Union. In fact, powers are required. All this in an attempt to come to a supranational state, in an attempt to come to a European unity idea where scaling has become a political obsession. In short, the European superpower is in construction.

I will give an example. As a result of the open border policy, Member States are no longer able to pursue their own immigration policy and a centralized immigration policy is increasingly being pursued at the level of the European Union. We now know where the beautiful principles of the then Schengen Agreement have brought us.

When Spain issued another round of regularization several years ago, which gave about 700,000 illegal immigrants from North Africa a Spanish passport, they also acquired the right to travel freely and joyfully across the European continent. The other member states stood by and watched it. Border controls are as leaked as a seed, and the European external border guard proves to be a utopia in practice.

The euro, as a single currency, will also be used to impose a central budgetary supervision on the Member States, with a European Minister of Finance, who will inspect the budgets of the Member States. He will not only control the budgets, but also ensure a common fiscal policy, euro bonds and everything related. In this way, all national decisions on taxation, financial commitments and economic policy, as well as policy decisions on pensions and health care, will no longer be taken by the Member States themselves, but only with the consent of the European Union.

Fortunately, there are still a few critical voices in the Flemish media landscape. To name one: Johan Van Overtveldt, chief editor of Trends. It provides a realistic view of the current functioning of the European Union. In his opinion paper of 10 February 2012, he hit nails with heads. I quote him: “Take now the budget draft agreement, the so-called Fiscal Compact, where there was a lot to do in the last few weeks. When you talk about this with a German, you hear the following: it is a tight agreement with enforceable rules that must be overseen by an independent entity, preferably the European Court of Justice. If you talk to a Frenchman, the following reads: it is a political agreement between sovereign states to be looked at with the necessary flexibility by a political entity, preferably chaired by a Frenchman. However, Merkel and Sarkozy say they agree on the Fiscal Compact. In reality, however, they are talking about very different things. That is the real problem of this European Union and the euro,” said Johan Van Overtveldt.

In this way, the believers of the European Union are increasingly moving forward. In their eyes, there will and must be a more centralised direction of the financial policies of the Member States. According to the view of the euro-utopists, therefore, not only a fiscal union must be achieved, but also a budgetary rate reduction must be imposed. Therefore, Member States should give up their powers. In one breath, therefore, a stronger political union is pushed forward.

The Flemish Interest does not agree with this view, because such a budgetary slide keeps essential elements of economic policy out of the democratic game and therefore we oppose such a fiscal and budgetary dictatorship. After all, we are of the opinion that the Flaming is absolutely not getting better from that. With the approval of the current EU treaty, our country definitively transfers the control and thus also the key of its budget to the unelected officials of the European Commission. They will be presented with the draft budget of each euro country before it can be discussed by the national parliaments, let alone approved or abstained.

The European Commission may reject the draft budget, abolish the measures taken by the government, impose other measures and impose financial fines. A euro country that does not produce enough is under the supervision of the European Commission. Thus, the European Union will turn into a new state, the United States of Europe so praised by some, a federation of EU countries on the American model.

Who believes that such a construction is a real option? I also never understood why so many Europhiles have the political urge to think large-scale. Where does this europhile obsession with big states and state associations come from? Where does this obsession for European unification come from? I ask myself the question.

The only answer to this is “that we must become powerful” or “that we must have a lot to say in order to play in the world.” I always wonder who is meant by “we”. Who should become powerful in a European superstate? Who has a lot to say in the world? The answer is probably the technocrats of the European Union, who send their political leaders.

In fact, the discourse of the Eurofanates is simple. We must create a European power block to show great powers like China, India, Russia and the United States how powerful we are. Therefore, European unification must and will come, regardless of the cost, regardless of the bureaucracy, regardless of the economic stagnation and regardless of the resistance among the population.

As folk nationalists, we believe that the construction of a European superstate or the United States of Europe can never work. The differences in Europe are too large. Europe is a cradle of differences. There are differences in language, differences in culture and history, differences in governmental structure, differences in historical strategic alliances and, last but not least, enormous differences in economic productive capacity. America was an empty country at the time, and even with that given, it needed a bloody civil war to reach a federal bond.

Furthermore, it is only a question of whether there is a proportional relationship between the geographical size of a state or its size in terms of population and the economic prosperity of its population. If there was already a connection between the size of a state and the prosperity of its population, it would rather be an inverse proportion. In their work entitled The Size of Nations, the Italian political scientists Alesina and Spolaore showed years ago that the ten most prosperous countries in the world have one by one a population that is smaller than that of Belgium. We can, by the way, use the arguments for a united Europe as well as the arguments for a world state. All that assumption alone makes the whole idea behind the EU as a superstate unbelievable.

Our conclusion is that with the prospect of a European superstate, the European Union is on a dead track. We see this more and more in the way European political leaders hold fast to their illusions. The European thought apparently does not tolerate heretics, no skeptics, and ⁇ no unbelievers. Europe, or rather this European Union, has become a matter of faith, but then a faith without God. The European Union has become a substitute religion.

Belgian politicians talk about Europe and the European Union in prose and poetry at the same time. Even the most cynical ex-premiers get into ecstasy as soon as they enter the European arena, from Wilfried Martens through Jean-Luc Dehaene to Guy Verhofstadt and now Herman Van Rompuy. In the European Union, they want to do what in Belgium never succeeded. They want to rule on a higher level, freed from the air of wheel-runners and pens. Following the Flemish village patriotism, the European Union is their new home, the landscape of unlimited idealism after years of struggling in the banal Belgian politics, with endless quarrels between Flemish and French-speaking Belgians. The European Union is their golden end of career. However, we only note that the European Union is more divided than ever.

Barroso can shout even as loudly that in a few years Europe will be a federal union, for us there will be no European demos, no European people. For us, the Spaniards are not Germans and the Flemish are not Greeks. Citizens of the national states will never be willing to give up their identity in exchange for an artificially forced superfederation, despite all European propaganda. In addition, a federal union requires a treaty amendment. It seems to me excluded that the current European political elite, given the ever-growing euroscepticism, wants to chase that change without a popular consultation. Even though the European propaganda machine will run at full speed, the differences are simply too big to push through such a project.

Let me talk about the euro, my colleagues. The euro was and is a political project, the wet dream of the federalists. But, as popular wisdom says, dreams are their deception and, moreover, the reality is different. Unlike this country, there are other countries where the euro debate is in full swing. This debate takes place not only among economists and bankers, but also among politicians. In Germany, for example, the former finance minister, Oskar Lafontaine, in an interview with Die Welt, pleaded to leave the euro: “Raus aus dem Euro” is his statement.

Also in the Netherlands, the loud word has fallen: “The monetary union has completely failed.” In the Netherlands, the former European Commissioner and former party leader of the VVD Frits Bolkestein who attracts the eurosceptic debate. I quote Frits Bolkestein: “The euro has proved to be a sleeping pill that has made Europe induce instead of thinking about the competitiveness of the Member States.” First, the complete withdrawal from the euro. Secondly, if a full withdrawal is not proved possible, the introduction of a so-called triple A-euro, in which only strong economies and strong economic countries may participate, the so-called "Neural countries".

On the contrary, it is true that most economies in Europe have been severely weakened by the euro crisis. The euro has therefore not proved to be a bond, but rather a splitting swamp.

The introduction of the euro and the associated financial system according to the one-size-fits-all principle, has proved to be a disastrous ideal to which the europhile politicians want to crampfully adhere, with all the consequences thereof. As if that is not enough, there will probably soon be a single interest rate system, based on the so-called euro bonds. The word “eurobonds” has since been renamed because of its poor connotation to “stability bonds”, which should serve to finance national debt.

For the euro-utopists, an additional disadvantage of the current political currency union is the difference in interest rates that Member States can borrow on the capital markets. As the euro countries no longer have their own national banks that can purchase state bonds unlimitedly, they have become extremely vulnerable to financial markets and investors. Thus, according to the boboes of the European Union, there must be euro bonds that are carried together by all the countries of the European Union. Consequently, they are again resorting to the stronger economies, i.e. the northern economies, to support the weaker. With these euro bonds, interest rates will drop in the Southern European countries, but will rise for the savvy northern countries.

A modest 2% increase in interest rates would require the Flanders to make an annual solidarity contribution of 3 to 4 billion euros. That solidarity contribution can even increase if a country falls completely to its knees, because then the costs are collectively borne. So I don’t think it’s realistic that the Flemish, Dutch, Germans, Danes and Finns will want to do this.

As a socialist people’s party, we oppose Brussels with a benevolent elite of technocrats who do all sorts of things in the back rooms and in ivory towers. Vlaams Belang does not like a technocratic elite that does not consist of elected politicians, who has no connection with the citizen and therefore does not have to be accountable. Vlaams Belang does not believe in false solutions that increase the damage to our country and its inhabitants.

The European voter will be asked in 2014 to give his or her opinion on everything that has been decided over his or her mind and for which he was presented. I think it is the task of Vlaams Belang to give hope to the Flemish voters and to offer them an alternative for Europe, but against this European Union. That is why we will not approve the present EU treaty, but will vote against it with conviction.

Mr. Speaker, I will start with something that Mr. Gilkinet has already mentioned. Yes, we are convinced supporters of the idea Europe, nous sommes des Européens convaincus! We have already said this before, and we will continue to repeat. For us, the European Union has gone from a project for peace, “never again war”, and is now a project that aims to ensure its citizens a social, sustainable and ecological future within the context of that peace.

The question is how to do that best. As I have already said in the Commission, the European Union is now at a crossroads. She has gone through two major crises that have compelled her to intervene. The financial and economic crisis sprang from the development model of the banking world, which was merely based on the accumulation of debt in the private sector and deregulation. That financial and economic crisis was followed by the government debt crisis, with public debt rising from countries that had actually lived very sober. This was the case, among other things, in Belgium, which reduced its budget debt from 108 % to 84 % by properly dealing with the public debt and by properly and deliberately settling.

After those years of sobriety for many European countries, including Spain, as a result of events outside those governments, we have become responsible for a state debt that suddenly was much higher, astronomically high amounts for which those governments and therefore their citizens suddenly had to deposit themselves. It was a crisis that undermined the very foundations of social cohesion and sustainability.

By the way, this crisis of legitimacy dates back to the outbreak of the financial-economic crisis, namely to 2006, when European citizens in the debate about the European Constitution, in the few referendums that were there, wiped that Constitution off the table for two reasons, namely insufficient social and insufficiently sustainable. In economically good times, unmistakable times, this voice was already heard. The European Union, which wants to strive for a sustainable future, must hear that voice.

Do we need a stability mechanism? Should we get rid of this public debt? of course ! However, in the current form, it does not go far enough. Allow me to clarify. What we do today is merely an attempt to control symptoms without addressing the problem at the root. One chooses a very one-sided model focused on public spending, wages, pensions and social benefits. The golden rule is introduced, but it is not applied in any comparable way with regard to the social, social and environmental issues that have been in place since 2006.

In the preparation of the Lisbon Treaty, it had already been agreed to hold a convention whenever a major new treaty would see the light. This would lead to a full democratic debate. This has not happened, it has not happened at all. The European Parliament and the national parliaments are simply out of play. There was no serious debate. How can we then count on the confidence of citizens, who have been asking for more participation since 2006?

The European Union today expects us to decide on a ratification with a simple yes or no, without the possibility of derogations. It does not accept any alternative and in recent years, in addition to the dozens of summits it has organized on savings, savings and even more savings, it has only one dedicated to growth and the fight against unemployment.

Today we are buying a cat in a bag. We give carte blanche to the European Commission, which in the future will not be audited by any agency. Actually, today we measure ourselves to a iron slide without a reflection. It is a corset, which is strained and that, in the long run, the population is increasingly deprived of breath, while the freedom of movement is reduced. You can compare it perfectly. The balance is sought. Whoever enters a budget balance as the norm in our law, admits too little balance.

The level of debt must go down, but with a GDP of 360 billion euros and a government debt that is now just below 100% in our country, this means that we will have to save structurally 7 billion for 20 years. This is a huge work. The citizen has the right to know what he stands for today. He must be informed about this. He must know the decisions taken for this purpose. He must know that they also depend in part on decisions taken unilaterally within the European body.

The Secretary of State also acknowledged in the committee that there is simply no clarity to be given about various concepts for which we have requested clarification in connection with the debate. It will be further completed by the European Union, which includes a deviation from the pre-established medium-term targets and a rapid convergence. Therefore, there is still a lot of food for debate on the present text, because there is no clarity today. In doing so, we give the future interpretation of it to Europe.

Let me be clear: yes, the hand must be struck at the team. Our debt is very high. The consequences of the debt we measure are now relentlessly on the shoulders of the next generation. But the treaty does not bring any sorts to the dive in this regard. It is a completely unbalanced instrument, which, for example, does not offer the slightest guarantees in the social or environmental sphere, just as it does for investments.

Furthermore, it does not provide for any objective evaluation procedure. Parliaments have already passed and will continue to pass in the future. Based on budgetary parameters, our budgets will be checked. Our policy on the social, ecological, economic and cultural levels will only be interpreted in this way, at a higher level. There is, says Paul De Grauwe, no good economic argument to make the government debt ratio tend to zero, as some want and have also said here today.

A government invests in education, infrastructure, order and security. They are crucial for the productivity and economic prosperity of a country. There is no good economic reason to think of why such investments could not be financed by, for example, the issuance of bonds, as there are no good economic arguments to prohibit, for example, companies from borrowing to make productive investments.

The Gray, formerly a liberal senator in this board, is not alone. His vision is shared by Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, the OECD and recently also the IMF.

A public debt that is too high should be lowered. We need to think about who will come after us, but not merely and only by doing numeric fetishism. There needs to be room for investment, in order to handle those social and ecological handles.

However, those who approve this treaty today without any hesitation, without at least including the necessary further explanations or frame-conditions in an accompanying document, do not agree. It does not have the slightest intention.

If you look at the level of poverty in our country today, how it is dealt with global warming, employment and our SMEs, that’s a matter of thought.

In order to impose the blind budget cuts, the European Commission relies, among other things, on an influential 2010 study conducted by two renowned economists from Harvard University, Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff. Some will know the latter. He was previously chairman of the IMF.

Both researchers concluded that a high debt rate of more than 90 % of our GDP in wealthy countries inevitably leads to a recession and therefore needs to be addressed by austerity measures. The study was conducted by Michael Ash, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts. He pointed out that this research shows gaps and not just the least, namely that the premise is not correct.

Meanwhile, the OECD has been asking for years to delay the cuts at least. Lagarde, chairman of the IMF, is in Berlin, the home of Angela Merkel, to defend against the model that this Europe has chosen, this blind austerity, which has increasingly negative effects on employment in Europe.

In Spain, which was one of the best learners in managing public debt before the crisis, almost two-thirds of young people are currently unemployed because of this approach in Europe.

Spain is no exception. The only country that has failed to maintain its budget is Greece. The Iron Law, based on the assumption that whoever drastically reduces his budget debt automatically creates room for growth and thus for a revival of the economy, does not appear to be true in practice. The responsibility for this debt, by the way, is also placed merely on the governments. It is strange, but it is heard bitterly little about this debate.

The fiscal discipline that various countries, including our country, have used for years, since the 1980s, has been successfully crossed by a banking crisis. The big banks have managed to build up a debt of as much as 250% of the GDP in Europe. The fall of the big banks has caused that debt to be distributed over the shoulders of all the countries in Europe who had to come to their rescue. The choice was simple: to lose savings or to save savings and thus increase their own government debt by taking over the debt of the banks.

As long as the banking sector is not restricted, as long as the banking activities are not separated and so long as one can take risks with savings, it is an illusion to think that the new budgetary iron slide of Europe will save us in the future from excessive government debt and that the treaty we will vote on tomorrow will fundamentally protect us from calamities in the medium or long term.

This budgetary treaty shows all signs of a realization in an atmosphere of panic. It is closed to reassure the markets. Two years after its preparation, it is clear that even in this fear has been a bad adviser. The European Stability Mechanism has entered into force. The ECB has been given more margin. If necessary, it may start buying euro area government bonds on the secondary market. This eliminated the disturbance in the markets.

However, the new insights gained in dealing with the crisis in Greece and the southern countries have prevented us from thinking, stopping, looking and evaluating. The ratification of the treaty continued steadily, including with us. The main argument is simply that countries that refuse to sign today will no longer be able to benefit from support from the European Stability Mechanism, a permanent financial emergency fund that provides loans to EU Member States in financial difficulties.

What does that mean in the light of what has happened here, in this Parliament, to us and to the citizens of this country in recent years? In fact, it is very simple: who does not participate in the choice of the European institutions, independent of the European Parliament, and therefore independent of the people’s aspirations since 2006, and who does not participate in that blind sanitation operation – which in fact, by the way, has already worked counterproductively – without guarantees on social and ecological conditions and without the possibility of investments, so future banking crises, which are at the root of the current crisis, can no longer be the master as a country.

It should not be much more perverse.

Those who had hoped for a solid parliamentary debate on this subject, in the meantime, come home from a very bald journey. Hearing and substantial debate with civil society and experts were not allowed.

Agreements must also be made on the distribution of efforts between the federal government, the Communities and the Regions. There is no document containing our country’s intentions to take social and environmental measures into account, but to take into account investments, which could be fully taken into account in the further examination of this treaty. This is not ready, it is not on the table yet.

I know that, among other things, the ACV, rightly, insists that the Federal Planning Bureau should make an econometric analysis of future growth with the strict budgetary criteria that today exist through this treaty, but also with alternative criteria, so that a good evaluation can be made and a serious debate is possible. After all, there is serious doubt that this iron slide, these strict budgetary criteria, without supplementation, are the best way to create optimal growth and employment under the condition of a manageable level of debt. Current circumstances do not allow such a hurry.

My group ⁇ regrets that the government has not taken that time, that it has not conducted a serious debate, that it has not made work of a document in which it takes out its own vision – its own handling of what is stated here, what must be answered with a simple yes or no – with sufficient guarantees for all those other criteria to which the majority parties here today have proved a lot of lip service, but of which we find nothing on paper.

Our plea remains that for a more social, greener and more democratic Europe: that is true that European, that is what that citizen also in our country has been asking for since 2006. This is not done by passing through parliaments in Europe or just here, it is not done by passing through the midfield, it is not done by going out of the way of the consultation, it is not done with a simple yes or no. Unfortunately, unfortunately, unfortunately, unfortunately, threefold unfortunately.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, in all silence, the established politics is once again taking huge steps towards the United States of Europe. Today a new European Union Treaty is ahead of approval, which increasingly transfers more and more power to the supranational institutions of the European Union.

With this so-called Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union, or the Fiscal Compact, a large part of the power over our budget goes to the antidemocratically established and non-democratically functioning European Union. The Fiscal Compact essentially regulates the transfer of powers and powers to the European Union. We are giving up sovereignty.

The Fiscal Compact is another part of a series of measures to improve the stability of the euro. Stability is one of the most used words in the EU jargon today. Since the introduction of the euro, the term stability has become a kind of magic word in the European Union, but in fact, the Orwell language has proven, because the euro and the European Union have made a relatively stable Europe precisely an unstable continent. The euro has created chaos and instability rather than stability. To save that euro, all kinds of undemocratic crafts are needed, such as the so-called European Stability Mechanism and this associated Wurf Treaty. Their only goal is to make Europe a European superstate.

The colleagues of the PS were recently unable to talk about the penalty that was over our heads because of their poor budget policy. We have heard all sorts of arguments, including that the European Commission would interfere too much. Their party chairman, among other things, made a very sharp appeal to the European Union and it was not the first time. He sneered in the newspapers more than a year ago, when he was still Minister of Public Enterprises, and I quote: “Where does European Commissioner Olli Rehn get the legitimacy to demand a strict austerity policy from the Belgian government?” With the Fiscal Compact, we give the direction of our public finances to the European Union.

The Flemish Interest opposes such worship treaties with extensive power transfers to the megalomane EU institutions. We oppose the European Union, but let it be clear that we do it precisely out of love for Europe.

The EU wants to force the European citizens that Europe is equal to the EU, or at least not without the EU. Europe and the EU are therefore too often deliberately confused by the europhiles, but they are two completely different things. The independent and sovereign Flanders, which we strive for, are part of the beautiful continent of Europe. It is the backbone of our Western culture.

You may not expect it, but let me make a call to diversity in that regard. I’m not talking about the diversity of the Eurocrats, who advocate and use mass immigration to realize a large European multiculture culture of unity, but about the historically grown European diversity, which has led to a typical European tapestry of free, sovereign and well cooperating nations. From that European tapestry, independent Flanders, which we strive for, must be part of.

Historically, Europe is a very diverse continent. A Dean is not a Greek, a Dutch is not a Portuguese and a Flaming is not a Waal. The differences are huge, not least due to the lack of a common language. Collega Hagen Goyvaerts has already cited a number of major differences in terms of demography, history, law, politics, social services, education, energy independence, let’s mention. That is fine, that is beautiful. Europe has been able to become strong thanks to that unique internal diversity, the European richness of cultures, traditions and peoples. Apart from the fact that a reunification is undesirable, Europe is absolutely not uniform and homogeneous enough to make a European reunification succeed. A European superstate simply cannot work.

Although Jean Monnet already spoke in 1943 of a European federation, we obviously do not doubt the good intentions of Jean Monnet or Robert Schuman. They aimed at preventing war and stimulating economic growth in Europe. Who can now oppose a certain degree of intergovernmental cooperation to bring about peace and more prosperity in the beautiful Europe?

However, it was fundamentally wrong in 1992, when with the Maastricht Treaty a federal concept was rolled out with a view to the introduction of a single currency.

Helmut Kohl said that the euro should be transformed into an irreversible political process. Mitterrand joined him in this and there was a need to work on it as soon as possible. Let it penetrate you, colleagues: an irreversible political process. This is essentially the end of democracy. In 1992, the Flemish Bloc held a press conference entitled “Europe yes, Maastricht no”.

The intentions of Schuman and Monnet, whether or not sustainable, with the euro in one hand and the stupid euronationalist utopias of feasibility in the other hand, the European Union accomplishes just the opposite. The euro was condemned to failure. A common currency cannot survive without a political or total union. The European political elites knew this. Therefore, they also knew that the introduction of the euro would inevitably lead to the current euro crisis.

The euro is a disaster for European prosperity. The figures show that non-euro countries have often done much better economically than euro countries. Overall, non-eurozone countries have grown harder. Today, for example, unemployment in the euro area is rising dramatically, while it is falling in the European countries outside the euro area. On the socio-economic level, no country is currently doing very well due to the global crisis. However, the countries in which the euro has been introduced are doing it significantly worse. I heard Wouter Beke say this morning in The Morning: “Belgium is doing better than the average of the eurozone.” The euro created an economic reality in which European economic cooperation – with absolutely nothing wrong with it – had to result in a far-reaching European integration. That is something completely different.

The EU and the euro are far from democratic. Furthermore, it is impossible for the European Union to evolve into a political or total union without further violating democracy. The euro was doomed to fail. If the euro fails, then the EU will also fail, which is driven by the euro and legitimizes its undemocratic seizure of power with the euro crisis. To save the euro at all costs, the European Union of Europe makes a transfer union according to the Belgian model. In this case, the north is financially dependent on the south. Artificially keeping the euro alive means that hundreds of billions have already flown and continue to flow to the eurozone countries in distress. With Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain and now Cyprus, more than one-third of the euro countries depend on the EU infusion.

The euro is not money, the euro costs money. With that price, I would like to stop for a moment.

Apart from the cost price of the euro, the Flaming is already the largest net payer in the European Union. With an annual cost of 286 euros, the Flemish pay more annually for transfers to the European Union than the Dutch, Welsh, German, French, Danish, Swedish or Finnish. Flanders can no longer afford such an uncritical advertise to the European Union.

Moreover, on these billions there is insufficient control and insufficient objective measurement of efficiency and results. Every year, the European Court of Auditors publishes a report on the legality of EU spending. This has never led to a declaration of approval. The fact alone that the European Court of Auditors has for years refused to approve those European accounts because of the many errors is a sign on the wall.

In addition to the regular transfers, the Flaming also pays blue to the conservation of that euro through various commitments to support funds of all kinds. In total, it is about a sum of as much as 70 billion euros of direct and indirect contributions to the many European emergency funds, the many loans, the risks that Belgium carries as a shareholder of the IMF and so on. 70 billion euros of risks, which represents 20% of Belgian GDP. This is a huge exposure that only takes into account the European risk.

Converted per capita, this means that the rescue of the euro has so far cost the Flaming as much as 6 000 euros. This is in addition to those 286 euros that the Flaming already pays annually to the European Union anyway. As long as the euro is artificially kept alive by the European Union, that amount will only continue to increase.

How well and carefully that European Union handles our money, we can see, for example, in Egypt. The Flemish Interest protested in January of this year when Herman Van Rompuy announced that Egypt would receive 5 billion euros from the European Union to support the transition to democracy. Believing that Morsi will use this money to make Egypt a democratic rule of law, however, testifies to an unprecedented naivety. In practice, the so-called democratization process, of which Van Rompuy speaks, involves the oppression of women, Christian Copts and other minorities and the absence of free expression. It is therefore not surprising that since the fall of Mubarak in March last year, more than one hundred thousand Coptic Christians have fled Egypt because of Muslim intimidation and lack of government protection.

It is therefore ⁇ cynical that the European Union, noted well as the Nobel Peace Prize winner, with billions of dollars of tax money supports an Islamic president who lacks the rights of women, gays and non-Muslims. The country is increasingly becoming an Islamic caliphate, where more and more elements of Sharia are being introduced. While a quarter of Europeans have reached the poverty line, the European Union is funding that rejected evolution. That, I think, may not be the wish of the citizens of the Member States.

Yesterday the European Court of Auditors agreed. In its report from the Court of Auditors heavily criticized the spending of €1 billion of EU aid to Egypt. “It’s completely unclear whether the money has been spent efficiently and legally,” the report said. The European Court of Auditors’ member Karel Pinxten said: “We simply don’t know how the money was spent, and therefore not how it went wrong.”

The European Court of Auditors puts serious questions about the €600 million allocated for health care, education and transport. It was handed over directly to the Egyptian Ministry of Finance, while budget management in Egypt left much to wish. The expenses for the military and the president are not even mentioned. There are large special funds that are also kept outside the books. Corruption is widespread and, for its part, the European Union has barely linked clear and measurable targets to the spending of that financial aid.

Furthermore, the projects aimed at increasing democracy and respect for human rights, for which they received €400 million from the European Union, were unsuccessful, according to the Court of Auditors. “The reluctance of the Egyptian authorities was large and the programs were sabotaged or deleted,” the report said.

According to Pinxten, the expulsion of dictator Mubarak in early 2011 did not improve the situation for aid: “On the contrary, with Mubarak there were problems, but under current president Morsi they only get bigger.”

The European Court of Auditors calls on the European Union to replace the current soft approach of giving without hesitation for result-driven support with strict conditions. That says enough. Furthermore, it is the recurring message in all the specific reports of the European Court of Auditors when it monitors the effectiveness of those EU subsidies.

Colleagues, I take this recent Egyptian example to show that that European Union has completely lost its pedals. As the eurozone crisis hurls wildly and Europeans are structurally impoverished, billions of euros are flowing to a jihadist and anti-Western regime.

Apart from the fact that the Flaming is financially empty by the European Union, the Greek, Italian or Spanish is in no way helped by the Flemish-European cash flow. On the contrary, they are, like the Waal in the Belgian context, made financially dependent on the European Union and degraded into a chronically ill patient.

The European Union does not want to see it from its ivory tower and chooses the flight forward. In fact, the Eurocrats assume a feasibility ideal in which they use the European single currency and the crisis that the currency has caused as an alibi to create one European people, one European empire and one European leader. They do everything they can to keep the euro artificially alive, by transferring more power and more powers to the European Union, by weakening national states and European peoples, and by attempting to homogenize them by opening borders and allowing mass immigration.

In fact, an enormous power gain of the European Union is taking place, in which an independent Flanders in advance sees its sovereignty evaporate to the European Union.

The introduction of the euro and the establishment of the European Union were and are a fatal failure, which is bad for European peace and prosperity. No wise economist would have invented the euro. No nationalist should support the euronationalism of the European Union. However, those involved continue to persistently propagate the lie that the European Union and the euro provide for prosperity and social peace and that the current crisis would have been much worse without the European Union and without the euro.

The opposite is true. The euro causes or exacerbates a financial and economic crisis. Furthermore, euronationalism or eurofederalism are simply opposed to folk nationalism and Flemish nationalism, which can only serve in a European confederation at the highest.

The EU utopia leads to the fact that the people are increasingly seen as the enemy, to whom the Eurocrats from Brussels and Strasbourg must impose their will for their own good. Therefore, the Flemish Belang as a Flemish, democratic and pro-European people’s party is with conviction a true euro-critical and eurosceptic party.

I come to my decision.

For cultural reasons, for a democratic reflection and for socio-economic reasons, we oppose a European superstate. The treaty that you will approve tomorrow is another step towards a total union. We are grateful for such a European Union, which controls every aspect of our lives. We unambiguously choose an independent, sovereign, Flemish state in a free European confederation.

Flanders could play a pioneering role in the heredemocratization of Europe. The cultural singularity, diversity and sovereignty have made Europe the beautiful Evening Land that it is, or we must say, that it was. A European federation cannot work because the differences within Europe are too large. Without such a European superstate, however, the euro cannot survive. We maintain the currency at all costs, and that costs our prosperity and democracy. It works in the hands of an unstable Europe. Vlaams Belang is today the only EU-critical party that opposes this, against the European Union and against the euro. Twenty-one years ago we opposed the Maastricht Treaty and the introduction of the euro. Today we call for a return to the European cooperation before that Maastricht Treaty.

In addition to the orderly division of Belgium, we also very consistently advocate the orderly dismantling of its larger version, the European Union and the eurozone. As inconsistent as they are, it appears to be irrelevant for the N-VA’s eurosceptic support nationalists that the undemocratic Union has no public support. Those who, like the colleagues of the N-VA, think that more European Union is good for Flanders are mistaken. More European Union means fewer Flanders, more European Union means that Flanders is systematically degraded to a province of Europe, more European Union means that Flanders, in addition to the dairy cow of Wallonia, also becomes the dairy cow of Europe.

If you approve this treaty tomorrow, we will become a little more a puppet of the European Union. Especially by this treaty the Flaming is financially vacuumed further. An independent Flemish state is becoming an empty box. We will not approve this treaty. We will continue to oppose the power of the European Union.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, Ladies and Gentlemen, the House is set to discuss today and to ratify tomorrow the European Budget Treaty aimed at strengthening budgetary discipline within the European Union. As has been repeatedly recalled, it provides in particular for the introduction of a budgetary gold rule for national budgets.

Since 2008, Europe has faced an unprecedented financial and economic crisis. We all know how much we could rely on the European Union and European solidarity to make various decisions that, together, allowed us to tackle them.

First, through the establishment of the provisional mechanism of the European Facility for Financial Stability, then the European Stability Mechanism and any other measures aimed at strengthening economic governance and various achievements and advances, achieved under the Belgian Presidency and subsequently. The six-pack is a set of European legislative measures aimed at reforming the Stability and Growth Pact and introducing new tools of macroeconomic control into national legislation.

It is in this context of solidarity and accountability of national authorities that European Heads of State and Government, including ours, with the exception of the United Kingdom and the Czech Republic, have agreed on a new European Treaty aimed at a stricter budgetary discipline. This Treaty establishes the legal basis for enhanced supervision of national budgets and sets a framework for the deficits and amounts of acceptable debt of each State.

Very clearly, as European Federalists, the members of my political group, the French-speaking Federal Democrats, will obviously support this text, as it builds on previous European agreements and constitutes for us an important step towards more budgetary discipline. This ratification is, in our view, an important moment for building a strong and federal Europe; it aims to strengthen cooperation and coordination within the Economic and Monetary Union.

Because, many economists had said it since the establishment of the euro, this single currency that we share: the management of the euro could no longer be the subject of a lack of economic and budgetary governance. Budgetary policies of growth and structural reforms between the different Member States have long caused difficulties and tensions for the maintenance of our single currency.

The monetary union should therefore be accompanied not only by reforms for the financial union, the banking union – measures that have been taken and are being implemented – but also by an integrated framework on budgetary and economic matters. There can be no monetary integration without budgetary integration, otherwise each state, protected by the single currency, could afford to carry out fiscal policies that all together would contribute to weakening the euro.

Now, we all know how much we needed this monetary framework that is the euro to help us through the crisis. We all know how the very flexible financing facilities of the European Central Bank have enabled our European banks to survive the crisis, to have the flexibility to avoid bankruptcy and to continue to assure their role in the economy and thus also to finance the budget deficits of our states. So we needed this currency, the euro, but in order to prevent it from becoming more fragile, we need a coherent and shared fiscal policy. This is the purpose of this text.

We therefore need a stronger Europe, more budgetally coherent, and to allow within this coherence each State to carry out relief policies, structural reforms, capable of creating the economic conditions for a return to more growth. This is what we need.

It should also be noted that if Belgium refused to ratify this treaty, it would deprive itself of the opportunity to benefit from this instrument of financial solidarity of the euro area, a very important tool that still allows to help states and banks in difficulty through all the recapitalization operations known across Europe.

What worries me, on the other hand, in this debate is what I call the schizophrenia of some majority political parties. In the PS, for example, on the one hand the Belgian Socialist MEPs vote against the mechanism provided by resolutions proposals related to this dossier, and on the other hand, the Socialist Prime Minister deposits a bill supported by half-word, supported by Mrs. Vienne here in this tribune, but with airs of false-appearance, to say that yes, to say that no. We do not know exactly what your position is: it is totally schizophrenic.

We hear your President, Mr. Magnette, holding statements radically different from the tone of the project, seeming to criticize this European mechanism. I hear mr. Minister Labille calls for a relaxation of European rules. And yet, the government deposits this text, invites its deputies to vote on it, and tomorrow, you will vote on it.

At the CDH, the same fight: Mr. Delpérée did not fail to invoke a problem of sovereignty, blaming the fact that "the Belgian Parliament was put before the fact accomplished and put out of play in the framework of the elaboration of this fundamental text". At the same time, the Deputy Prime Minister, Ms. Milquet, of course supports this text, which has the approval of the entire Council of Ministers.

What I want to blast here is this false anti-European attitude of a series of political parties, who want "butter and money of butter", the protection of Europe, the euro protected from our national budgetary policies, but at the same time being able to say to their citizens: "Taratata, compliance with economic rules, compliance with a budgetary constraint, loans ...". Indeed, the state is regularly in deficit and in order to borrow money, you must be credible before the borrowers. However, we do not want to recognize that we have an obligation to comply with a budgetary constraint.

Very frankly, if this rule had not been discussed at European level and approved by the Council of Ministers at European level, we should, within the Belgian state, set ourselves rules of budgetary rigour so as not to jeopardize our ability to continue borrowing, to pay reasonable rates on our loans and not to jeopardize the European currency which is, so far, our best protection against the crisis.

I also do not accept and I am angry to hear this discourse that claims to be European. by Mr. Gilkinet recently said he was in favor of Europe while pretending to denounce it and accuse it of all the evils of the earth. He told the tribune in a kind of very Europe-bashing, fashionable speech that it was Europe’s responsibility if everything went wrong. He highlighted the problems of social equity in our economies, the problems of education, the problems of security, poverty, industrial policy, in short, a series of matters that are virtually not, or even not at all, within the European competence; 95 % of the public budgets in the European Union fall within the national competence. And we continue to say that the lack of a sufficient policy of solidarity between the citizens of a country is the responsibility of Europe.

All of these matters fall within the national competence. Education is a national policy. To want to blame Europe for results for policies that are not within its competence seems to me an anti-European discourse, while we have been able to rely heavily on Europe to help us through the crisis. We need to focus more in this direction.

Since Mr. Clerfayt makes me the friendship to quote us, I would like to tell him that, if Europe is a problem for us, it is also our hope. I believe I have said it very clearly and I reaffirm our position as convicted federalists, but calling for another European development.

If the competences you cited in the fields of education, solidarity are national competences, the budget burden we want to impose on us and the regular recommendations of the Commission, in particular with regard to the automatic indexation of wages, are a problem for us. Indeed, they de facto put the nation-states in the inability to conduct the policies they wish to implement in the matter.

Some of our colleagues in this parliament are using this European coercion to implement their own agenda which I have called neo-liberal and which I see as a social regression. This really poses a problem to me. We support Europe when it works for tax harmonisation, for an automatic exchange of bank information. We would support her if she put on the table the Green deal that we expect, and that we ask with the European Greens. But we denounce it when it promotes austerity for all and everywhere.

Mr. Gilkinet, the assertion of a budgetary constraint is not a speech of the left, a speech of the right, or a speech of the center: it is a accounting reality. A state cannot continuously finance its current expenses by making them pay by future generations. This is an argument you like to repeat in other circumstances.

This situation also has economic consequences: a budgetary constraint must be respected if one does not want to undermine the single currency. All European states would like to go further in solidarity, go further in education, go further in all subjects that are within their own competence, for which they have revenues therefore from their own budgets, by borrowing, that is, using the money of future generations, protected as they are by the euro. If all states do this, it is the euro that is weakened and we, together, are damaging these policies and the protection that the euro gives us.

That is why, as European Federalists, we will defend and support this project. It is not 100% perfect, it is not 100% what we would like, but it is the compromise that allows the 27 European countries to move forward, to progress, to build a stronger euro, a stronger Europe, a Europe that coordinates on the budgetary and economic level; which always allows each of the nation-states that make up this Europe, within its budgets, to have a debate on its political priorities in matters of security, fiscal rules, solidarity and others. It is up to us to conduct these debates here.

Per ⁇ too – which I will not reject – could we wish for more European integration in these matters? Indeed, we have already been able to take advantage of Europe’s monetary benefits, we will take advantage of its budgetary benefits: then, why not put other topics on the table tomorrow?

That is why my group will support this project.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, today, the political parties that will support the adoption of this European Stability Treaty, that is, almost all of this Parliament, will endorse a disguised coup, a revolution. But be careful, not a revolution that benefits citizens. No, especially not! A revolution of white-collar criminals, a revolution that will benefit only the banks, at the expense of the population.

This treaty, which will, I do not doubt, be adopted by our parliament but to which I will not give my vote, allows us to discover a little more what this so-called democratic Europe will look like, to the Goldman Sachs sauce, which our little technocratic friends have concocted to us in the greatest secret.

What I can tell you is that this new European dish is indigest for the citizens from below. You know, the little people of whom everybody is wiping out! People you no longer listen to. Those people you no longer protect! The people you no longer represent. A people who are not even informed of the content of the text we are discussing today thanks to the complicity of the media. These media lies, whose purpose today is no longer to inform but rather to abuse the population with stupid information about the bottles of pseudo-starlets lacking neurons! But it’s true that while we talk about Zahia’s sexual exploits or Nabila’s swarms and encourage young people to bow in front of their television to watch The Angels of Telereality, our leaders are stuck with us! The media collaborates. As proof, though I look at the space dedicated to the press, not a television, not a journalist, no one is present today. The space is empty. I even bet that tonight in the television newspaper, we will not talk about this European treaty. of course ! It is better to hide this reality from the people. It is better to silence what appears to be a criminal coup d’état of the global finance.

It is better in fact that citizens do not know that you, who are preparing to vote on this text, are in reality only the small hands of these banks and those financial interests, of those lobbies that oppress the population by austerity without worrying about the human suffering which, however, develops somewhat throughout Europe.

As a result of this pseudo-crisis of 2008, this crisis that you created, the only and only victims so far are the citizens from whom more and more efforts are required to repair the voluntary and deliberate mistakes of those whose essential value is not humanism but money at any cost, whatever the consequences.

I will not participate in the enslavement of the citizens of my country. I will therefore vote against this treaty, lamenting that a text of such importance is not even proposed in a referendum and that it is voted in catimini, in the back of the population. This is unworthy of a country that claims to be democratic. I will not vote for this treaty because it will enable to impose even more austerity in an increasingly authoritarian way, by further framing the fiscal policies of the member countries of the European Union.

Today, each country still has the right to determine its budget and it is the subject of debate and vote in parliament. We still have one ounce of national sovereignty. But tomorrow it will be done! The Belgian Parliament will no longer have a word to say about the budgets. This can be called a democratic hold-up.

As you know, at least those who have read this treaty – I don’t know if there are many – it will introduce the golden rule. Article 3.1.A of the Treaty states that the budget of public administrations, i.e. the State, local authorities and social security, must be in surplus or in balance in terms of revenue and expenditure. To make it simple and for everyone to understand, we must be at 0% of the deficit in relation to the GDP while we are already not below the 3% of the deficit required by the Lisbon Treaty. Look for the error.

The Greek, Portuguese, Cypriot, Spanish, French, Belgian, Italian citizens are tightening their belts to digest austerity and you want to impose it on them. But that is not yet enough! We need to press them a little more. The problem is that the citizens no longer have the juice to give you. They have already given enough.

I will not vote on this treaty because Article 3.2 simply violates the national law of the Member States of the European Union by obliging them to insert the golden rule of which I have just talked about no later than one year after its entry into force. All this through permanent binding provisions, preferably constitutional. The constraints are therefore very high and will be imposed by force, because if this golden rule is not transcribed into the country's law, the state will be levied a tax amounting to 0.1% of its wealth. This is pure blackmail, pure blackmail. Extortion on the back of the people.

But the treaty does not end there. Indeed, if the budget deficit is slightly greater than that envisaged by this treaty – imagine a deficit of 0.5% of GDP – an automatic mechanism envisaged by the technocrats will be put into action to pinpoint wherever possible. It is the institutionalization at the European level of national interference. Previously, the principle in force was that of national sovereignty, which normally implies that it is the Belgian Parliament, that is, elected members who normally have accountability to the voters, who decides the budget, taxes. This is not the case, the members have no accountability. From now on, the European Parliament will have nothing to say. Farewell to democracy! It will be lawyers, technocrats and unelected advisers who decide, and they will not even be responsible for the decisions made. It is practical! Thus, more rigour, more austerity, more social regression can be imposed on the population without any political party being responsible. It will be the fault of the EU. This is how today’s politicians want to retain power by relieving themselves of all responsibilities, by sacrificing the last pieces of our national sovereignty!

The Stability Treaty also envisions a reduction in debt at a V-speed, i.e. by 5% per year. Five percent, this may seem little, but in reality, it is a violent bleeding only applicable through authoritarian to not say totalitarian measures. Then, we follow the logic of Greece. When we do not obey our masters, they impose structural reforms on us: lower wages, abolition of indefinite contracts, reform of the labour market, questioning pensions, reducing social budgets, health and education, increasing privatizations, hunting unemployed, hunting the poor, which is very popular today. All these measures are supposed to allow the country to regain the virtuous path of growth!

It also has an authoritarian dimension. The European technocrats are really very bad in managing the European Union. On the other hand, they lack imagination when it comes to imposing sanctions. According to the text, the European Court of Justice can impose a state a fine of several billion euros, without us being able to say anything. Further quasi-systemic sanctions from the Commission may also be applied, as soon as the Commission has decided so. Interference and arbitrariness become the rule.

In 2018, all states will be included in the treaty, whether they have ratified it or not. It will be transposed into the EU Treaties as they already exist. Article 16 stipulates that, “within five years, the necessary measures shall be taken to incorporate this Treaty into the legal framework of the European Union.” In short, either we leave the European Union or we accept the Treaty; we have no other choice.

I sincerely confess that I would rather leave this European Union that oppresses peoples, in silence – today there is no more war in Europe, but it is another war that exists – than worship the honor and independence of my country. I am afraid to be alone enough to share that.

The idea of leaving this treaty was not bad, as it was about limiting the budget deficit and thus forcing debt reduction by controlling loans. But the way is bad. I therefore oppose this logic, because it does not work, it is not applicable.

Before I became a politician, I was always independent. If I’ve learned one thing, it’s that it’s impossible to grow your business without investing. A business that no longer invests is a business that goes bankrupt.

So it’s not by playing the card of austerity that you’ll restart the economy and bring well-being to the people. Reducing public spending will only lead to the destruction of our institutions, our industries, our economy, our social progress, and not vice versa. What you aim at by supporting this text is the destruction of our long-term achievements.

Today, the Maastricht Treaty prevents us from exceeding the 3% deficit. But at the time of the 2008 crisis, all the states, I say, were above 3%. However, the treaty continued to exist and the euro still exists. Thus, it aims to further tighten a rule that was not already observed.

We are walking on our heads! This is absolutely absurd unless the real will is to stifle the population. Cutting public spending as this treaty pledges is criminal, cruel, anti-social and antidemocratic unless the aim is to create a Europe of the poor! This is ⁇ what is being implemented today.

Look at Greece: 9 austerity plans, an explosive suicide rate, a record unemployment rate, dismotivated and disenchanted youth, a debt 25% higher than at the start of the crisis. Today, the country is completely devastated, far more than before the austerity measures. Spain and Portugal follow the same pattern. These three countries are in recession.

You want to get us into a vicious circle.

Reducing the state budget is depriving the population of money that it can not then re-inject into the economy by consuming or investing. Cutting the state budget, lowering wages, is therefore considerably reducing tax revenues, putting our pensions and health care at risk, and simply digging debt again. This is completely absurd again!

Unfortunately, the logic of this treaty is already perceptible in our country. We are already in recession, ⁇ are already closing every day, unemployment is already rising, jobs are less stable. It’s already bad, even though we don’t want to recognize it here. And this treaty will only make the situation worse.

The underlying reality of this treaty is actually the enslavement of the population. As proof, all key sectors of our society are eventually privatized. This is exactly the logic according to which the IMF operates in developing countries – which, by the way, must, by the way, be in development for eternity, since I hear this term being used since I was very young. Can you not repay the debt? Okay, there is no problem! Give us in return your road network, your natural reserves, your diamond mines, your health care system: we take care of everything. It is so practical!

In Greece, we have even witnessed unnamed absurdities such as the privatization of police services. If you need a policeman, hire him. But where are we going? Soon, if this continues, we will also privatize the fire services. Those who have not paid their insurance will be able to see their home devastated by the flames without a truck ever starting to extinguish the fire.

The sovereignty of states is no more than a distant memory. The sovereignty of the people is undermined. Your policies of submitting citizens to finance will lead us, I fear, to civil war, to hatred, which the media will channel and deviate to other elements such as immigration or religion. I heard these words today.

The Civil War: Oh! You think I’m exaggerating, some will say “as usual.” Unfortunately, no, I am not exaggerating. Just listen, if you want to, to the European youth, who are tired of it! Every day I receive letters from European citizens from France, Belgium, Germany, somewhere else. The conclusion is unfortunately always the same, no matter where in the country: the youth has overtaken politicians, Europe and the power of banks.

The revolt grows and spreads. And, if you don’t hear it, it’s that you’re simply deaf to the demands and expectations of the population – which is, of course, not my case. I am sorry!

I am tired of reducing the quality of life of my compatriots: less money for the public sector, less money for transport, less money for people with disabilities, less money for education, less money for our hospitals! In reality, less social and more money: here are your solutions, but they are bad!

You are always the first to say that public spending must be stopped. On the other hand, for exceptional expenses, there is always money. This is the only method that your so-called technocrats have at hand. In order to re-inject money in banks, this is no problem. Money is illegal. Now, when it comes to helping the poorest, feeding or heating an SDF, or even helping a paperless, what is being said to us? “There is no money.” I wonder in what society and in what world we live. Is this the society you want for your children? Sorry, but I cannot accept it.

My dear colleagues, for years, you have subjected the population to antidemocratic treaties, even when they are consulted by referendum, as was the case in France and Ireland with the Lisbon Treaty, and they say "no". The result: politicians mock citizens; and the Treaty is applied, no matter what the people think of it. It’s very simple in Belgium: you don’t even ask for your opinion, you don’t really care about it. We go straight ahead; it’s good, it’s coming from Europe, we vote!

Unfortunately, this treaty is even worse than its predecessors. The question today is not whether we will implement it. We know it will be effective de facto from 2018. We must rather ask ourselves when and how we, conscious Belgian citizens, will get rid of blind, deaf and heartless politicians before it is too late. When will you realize that you are making a serious mistake, a criminal mistake? In fact, you act against the interests of the citizens you are supposed to represent. I know you’re not listening to me, it’s not serious, but listen at least to the people’s ras-le-bol! Go down the streets and listen to what people have to say. But no: you do not dare! With a few exceptions, I agree.

You can still restore yourself. It is not too late! The people will be merciful. They are still voting for the Socialist Party. But if you persist, know that you are taking great risks because long-term citizens will not let you go.

If you want money, let the people work there! Let the common sense speak! Because money, we know where it is, where it hides rather. Let the people do a debt audit! You will see that much of it is a hateful debt, as it is said in the financial jargon.

Let citizens search the balance sheets of large multinational corporations that practice tax evasion and you are tax exempt! You will see that there is money.

But it’s true that if you want milk cows, it’s time to find others! The Belgian people have already given enough!

Dear colleagues, I will be brief.

First and foremost, I understand those who assume that Europe should not only be an economic given that speaks of more budgets and the like, but that Europe definitely also has a social function. I have already said in the committee meeting that I personally am not opposed to a minimum wage. If we operate in one economic space, then it seems logical to me that a minimum wage is introduced. I therefore welcome the fact that Germany and France have taken an initiative in this regard to somewhat reduce the freerider effect from Germany in connection with the mini-jobs.

Second, the government’s commitment to hold hearings in the transposition of the treaties into Belgian law should also be noted. That is indeed a gap now, but we are proposing it today so that that democratic gap can be filled.

A budget in order is not a neoliberal agenda. It is politically neutral in our eyes. There is nothing social to a budget deficit and there is nothing social to carry more interest to the banks. The best way to stop getting clues from Olli Rehn and others is to have a balanced budget. If we evolve toward a balanced budget or if we have a balanced budget, if we are back on the way to become a triple A country, then a visit by Olli Rehn becomes a tea crane that we do not need to look much behind. To those who believe that the yoke of Europe weighs heavily, with all those clues, guidelines and recommendations, I would like to call on them to join forces so that we can get a balanced budget as soon as possible.

Indeed, not all countries have taken the same care with the interest bonus, which came into our country from 1999 and from 2002 with the introduction of the euro in banknotes and coins. When some now advocate for euro bonds or for the mutualization of our debt, it makes sense that others in Europe propose to be a little more cautious by ensuring in the first place that everyone has their budget back in order, and only then to bow over euro bonds. Article 6 is already a first step in this regard, in the sense that it informs the Commission and the Council of new public bond expenditure.

Ladies and gentlemen, whoever is against the present draft is in favor of interest rate increases, because that will be the concrete effect of what the opponents are advocating.

Mrs. Almaci, it is true that there may not be a hundred percent clarity about all parameters, and I understand your reasoning. However, I hope you also consider the following. If all this is fixed very rigidly, then Europe also has no flexibility anymore. Is flexibility by definition the opposite of your plea?

Wouldn’t the opposite, especially absolute rigidity — which, for example, is fast and involves other parameters — be entirely on-European?

Finally, in addition to the budgetary objective in terms of deficit and the golden rule, there is also a debt level objective. We need to make up for a twentieth of the difference between our debt rate, say 100%, and that 60%, i.e. a reduction of the debt rate by 2% per year. You regret that we are today deciding on €8 billion in structural savings without much debate. I ask you right, right, are you in favour of keeping the debt rate of Belgium at 100%? Is it an option that we transfer so much interest to the banks you love so much? Is that the intention, or is it actually the intention to go to a debt rate of 60%? Wouldn’t that free up a lot of billions in our budget, which we can then spend on all kinds of good social goals?

I thank you for the debate and hope that we can get the necessary support in Parliament for this bill, because otherwise interest rates will rise, and I have understood that you are absolutely against it.

Would you like to reply, Madame Almaci? I asked you and you said no. You are distracted, Madame Alves.

No, I am not disappointed at all, Mr President. I thought an overwhelming majority wanted to replicate. Since a question has been asked to me personally, I am happy to answer.

Mr. Secretary of State, you have very clearly heard me calling for the reduction of the high state debt, which is a heavy legacy for our children. Our country is one of the countries that historically had high public debt, even though we have raised it from 108 percent to 84 percent. However, there has been an intervening player who has taken on excessive debt, which is 250% of the European GDP, namely the banking world. No word was said about it today.

I agree with you that government debt should go down, but what is the price? Why are there no similar parameters on the basis of which we make a real golden rule for what lies ahead here today? Today we are faced with an iron slide – I have called it a corset – that is taking away the breath from the European economy. That is now well known. Unemployment in the southern countries is an indicator on the basis of which the IMF, OECD, Christine Lagarde and several major economists, including ours, including Paul De Grauwe, have made it very clear that Europe needs to change its course.

Today it is a yes-no debate, without a framework that makes social, ecological, sustainable and democratic principles equally enforceable. I am ⁇ concerned about this. So yes, the government debt level should be lowered, but not in a way that only takes into account a very one-sided aspect, namely the numeric fetishism and the blind cuts, against which a number of people have just protested outside by clinging to Parliament. They are right. There was no debate, neither in the European Parliament nor with us. The majority did not engage in the dialogue with the civil society.

I am in favor of flexibility. Flexibility is a very important asset for the government, but to define flexibility as giving out all the margin of interpretation to a higher government? I do not share that view or definition. I think it was up to us to say what the margin of interpretation should have been. The government could have given an indication to Europe, instead of giving everything to Europe. We also missed that opportunity, even if it was only in a frameworked document.

Given the way in which the text has been drawn up, the procedures and the lack of dialogue and democratic control, I am cautious about the further progress and the completion of the term flexibility.

I don’t want to extend the debate unnecessarily, but you have an interesting point, when you say you’re proud to have brought the debt rate from 102 to 82 percent when you were in the government, but during your participation in the government there was a interest bonus.

We had just introduced the euro and a lot of money was released because the interest burden dropped massively. You have actually surfaced on that golf. As long as there are no euro bonds, that interest bonus is not comparable now. You should look at the drop in interest rates, not just to the absolute level. In those circumstances, going from 100 to 80 will be a different pair of sleeves than at the time in the reference period, which you have so proudly defended.

We should not stretch the debate, although I think the topic deserves a serious debate, but the context is completely different. We are in a hyper-nervous European market system, with a lot of time being wasted over the past year in making decisions that should have been made earlier. I also acknowledged in my speech that, in the meantime, a number of decisions have been taken that have calmed the markets, including the European Stability Mechanism.

The perverse is that today the link has been made between the approval or not without any margin of interpretation, dialogue or contribution from the national parliaments, and possible assistance from the European Emergency Fund, necessary to cope with future banking crises. We started with a banking crisis, which overthrew everything. In order to protect ourselves as a government, we must now do something that puts the knife in a number of principles and that is shown in practice to be harmful to the well-being, health and well-being of citizens, also on a long-term social and ecological level. Look at Spain, which was one of the best pupils in Europe and which was very proud of the way it had handled its budget so far.

I go around. I repeat that the context is absolutely incomparable. Only we have learned that the blind austerity imposed on us by Europe is indicated by many experts, and not only ours, as too one-sided and very nefarious to the social fabric of Europe.