Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-02-Speech-4-025"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991202.2.4-025"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"EMU is not a construction to be ranked with the seven wonders of the world. Rather, it is in the running for the title of world’s largest folly, for it is designed to give the world’s largest trading block a single currency built upon a foundation which, until the introduction of this currency, it had only been possible to hold in place for a period of five post-war years in Germany. In every other year, the rate of inflation has been more than 2%. To make an idol of this rate is not only stupid but also a direct assault upon the many families in which the father or mother is now coming home with a redundancy notice instead of a wage slip. EMU’s holy cow is worse than the holy cows of India. The latter do not in the least prevent opportunities from arising to create growth and employment.
The absurdity becomes apparent when Danish economic policy is compared with that pursued in the eleven euro or EMU countries. Over the last five years, growth in Denmark has been twice as great: 20% instead of 10%, and the rate of unemployment has been halved. That should be considered good by any ordinary person’s standards but, in EMU, such a policy would be downright illegal; in fact, more than that, unconstitutional, because it was put in place with a Budget deficit of 3.9%. The policy would have incurred a fine of EUR 500-600 million. Some people say that the policy can be changed when politicians sit together round the table, but that is somewhat non-sensical because the policy may only be altered by amending the treaty itself, the basic law, the Treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam. This is where the errors arise from. The Central Bank may be criticised for raising interest rates instead of reducing unemployment, but it is only doing what the Treaty says it must do. It is the Treaty which should be altered. The single currency ought at least to be converted into a common currency allowing countries to have their own rates of exchange for the purposes of pursuing economic policies which benefit employment. In that way, one economic policy or the other might be pursued. The countries themselves should be allowed to decide which."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples