Jump to content


Fiscal compact has no place in EU Treaties

20130521pht08721-cl

Press Release

Friday 6 Oct 2017

 

Nessa Childers, MEP for Dublin, explains her opposition to the incorporation of the Fiscal Compact into the EU’s treaties, which was debated with the EU executive, in Strasbourg, at this week’s plenary session of the European Parliament:

 

“At the height of the economic crisis, in 2012, almost all EU countries signed up to the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union, also known for short as the Fiscal Compact.

 

“It further tightened the fiscal constraints imposed on Member States’ budgets as a condition for access to the loans facilities provided by the European Stability Mechanism, which replaces the temporary mechanisms created to manage the bailouts to Greece, Ireland and Portugal.

 

“This further tightening of the debt brakes foreseen in the Stability and Growth Pact, (which had been created especially with coordination of the Eurozone countries’ finances in mind) was seen as a necessary step when other Euro countries might yet need emergency support, but a conservative majority among the EU leaders would only unblock it under strict fiscal consolidation conditions.

 

“Because two EU Member States did not sign up to the Fiscal Compact treaty, it was signed as a conventional international agreement, outside the aegis of the EU’s treaties and institutions.

 

“Now, those who remain attached to the narrative that profligacy in public expenditure was at the heart of the crisis want to see this treaty fully integrated into the EU treaties.

 

“This would be a further step in a worrisome trend towards the elevation of “golden rules” for balanced budgets to the status of constitutional or quasi-constitutional norms.

 

“What we saw at the start of the Eurozone crisis was essentially a scramble to save the financial sector from its own misdeeds, which dangerously depleted our public coffers.

 

“Because the Eurozone was designed, at Germany’s behest, to prevent fiscal transfers from the fiscally responsible to the spendthrift, as it feared, while the currency’s governance remained incomplete and oblivious to the dynamics of economic integration that created bubbles in the periphery, the system ground to a halt.

 

“Instead of obsessing over public debt, which was a symptom rather than a cause, and tying our hands-on counter-cyclical policy, we should be focussing our attention on other matters to stimulate growth, a necessary green transition and employing our young.

 

“The European Central Bank, after the mistaken involvement in the troikas, has been single-handedly bearing the weight of financial stability and recovery through quantitative easing, whilst the Member States have refused to pull their weight on the fiscal front, which is sorely missing.

 

“This comes with its risks and highlights other failings, such as the lack of accountability and transparency in the goings on of the Eurogroup of finance ministers.

 

“Such matters are much more important than the ideological war on fiscal leeway, which has been very much missing over the lost decade we’ve been through.


Childers rejects free pass on hormone disrupting chemicals

iloveedcfreeproducts

Press Release

Wednesday 4 Oct 2017

Nessa Childers, MEP for Dublin, hailed today’s blocking, in the European Parliament, of an EU executive proposal to exempt certain pesticides from the EU’s evaluation of whether chemicals can be harmful to hormonal health.

Speaking from Strasbourg, where the vote was held at Parliament’s plenary session this afternoon, Ms. Childers said:

Everyday, we come into contact with endocrine disrupting chemicals which interfere with our hormonal systems by breathing, eating drinking or skin absorption. They are present a vast range of items ranging from food and drink and the respective packaging, cosmetics to toys.

Pregnant women, babies and children are particularly vulnerable to their effects.

Parliament legislated, years back, with the governments of Member States to ban such substances, and gave the EU executive a mandate to set scientific criteria to determine whether chemicals disrupt the normal functioning of hormonal systems, so as to safeguard human health and the environment.

There was nothing in the legislation allowing the EU executive to propose an exemption for pesticides that attack insects’ endocrine systems by design, which will affect non-target species as well.

So we proposed a rejection to the full house from the Environment and Public Health Committee, in the face of a lobby onslaught by chemical industry and the opposition of conservative members, so this outcome was not guaranteed.

Moreover, the criteria which the Commission is belatedly presenting us with have been criticised by the endocrinology community as exceedingly narrow, which can let many chemicals slip through the net.

I’m happy to see a majority of colleagues came to agree with them and with us, in the Environment and Public Health Committee. The Commission has dragged its feet over the years, was even taken to the EU court over their failure to act on endocrine-disrupting chemicals, and they still fail to properly implement the legislation we’ve approved here.

We need the EU executive to get back to work and propose scientific criteria which will effectively contribute to protect us, the environment and future generations from the harm these chemicals cause.”

ENDS