Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-17-Speech-5-019"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-11-17"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:VOTE2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20001117.2.5-019"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-11-17-Speech-5-0212
lpv:speaker	lp:Helmuth Markov2
lpv:spokenAs	treasurer; EUL/NGL (1999-10-13--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Delegation to the EU-Slovenia Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 vice-chair; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; BUDG (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Partei des Demokratischen Sozialismus (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"In assessing the Directive on the own funds of banks, a number of conflicting interests have to be carefully weighed against each other. Those in favour of the directive can legitimately demand that their interests be protected, and mediation is required if a fair regulations are to be devised. It is, in the first place, savers who could profit from harmonised EU-wide regulation because their investments would be protected against losses in accordance with identical criteria. On the other side of the argument are the SMEs, which fear that regulation would make it difficult for them to raise credit because they would not be able to compete with the guarantees which large companies are able to provide. As a result, there might be job losses in SMEs. A second conflict of interests arises from the fact that, on the one hand, a fairly long transitional period is required in order to provide as many banks as possible, especially smaller institutions, with the opportunity to implement the necessary new regulations in their internal operations. On the other hand, a delay in implementing the regulations favours American banks, which profit from the current set of regulations and are able to undercut European banks in Europe. We must not allow our companies to be disadvantaged in this way, but without playing large European companies, powerful as they are, off against smaller ones, to the detriment of the latter. We support the demand for a solution to be found to the conflict between the United States and the EU, produced by the discriminatory Gramm-Leach-Bliley legislation. All in all, it may be said that the demand for European harmonisation is legitimate and that the latter would bring benefits to all sides in terms of security and fairness. However, no one side ought, in the process, to be afforded an advantage at the expense of the others."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph