Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-22-Speech-1-121"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011022.8.1-121"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, first of all, I wish to congratulate Mr Goebbels on his report. This is an interesting report that goes into considerable depth in an attempt to explore the various issues it raises and its resolution is informed and balanced. In our opinion, the report makes a constructive contribution to a debate of fundamental political importance and, furthermore, is very timely.
Of course, we cannot rest on our laurels as a result of these improvements. Much still remains to be done and, in its report, Parliament shows the correct way forward. The Commission is quite happy to accept your view that we must ensure full participation by the private sector in solving and managing financial crises. Not only in order to ensure that responsibilities in times of crisis are shared in an equitable way, but also that the private sector is appropriately and systematically involved, which is crucial to effective crisis prevention, thereby preventing dangerous and, ultimately, unsustainable, risk situations from arising.
I do, therefore, take note of the call for the Commission to consider the viability of introducing clauses for collective action on financial instruments such as securities. You all know as well as I do that the Member States do not fully agree with this position but it is a point of view that the Commission takes seriously, as we do all references to the fight against the funding of terrorism.
The 11 September attacks have brought to the fore the abuses of the financial system by terrorists and the Commission has already adopted certain measures in this field. You have also made an effective contribution by finalising the codecision procedure on the second directive on money laundering. Nevertheless, we must keep making progress in this area. We are now in the early days of a process which will be long and we must continue working in this direction over the coming months. It is important that we make rapid progress on each of the proposals that provide valuable instruments for combating the funding of terrorism.
I wish to make a brief comment on one point that is still a source of some frustration to us, and that is the external representation of the European Union. The explanatory statement of the motion for a resolution refers to Europe’s conspicuous absence from the debate on a new financial architecture. You criticise the fact that the isolated initiatives of some Member States do not form a European policy. The Commission can only agree with this analysis. So how do we respond? What can we do? How can we improve the situation? I would say that it is not simply a matter of improving coordination and of speaking with one voice. Economic and Monetary Union has undoubtedly transformed the blueprint of worldwide financial and monetary relations, but the way in which we continue to address these issues in the main organisations and forums, including the Monetary Fund and the G7, is still based, to a large extent, on a purely national concept.
I can, therefore, only agree on the need to make progress. I think we will find it very difficult to formulate a meaningful policy in this area unless we clearly state our European positions as such at world level. This will require a more appropriate and clearly defined external representation of our interests. I am aware, however, that it will be very difficult to make progress in this direction unless we first make progress on the substance. Focusing the battle solely on our representation abroad is not as important as defining our own positions and producing coordinated policies on external matters. These two steps must be made in the same direction and at the same time. And on these points, Parliament can be sure that the Commission will continue to make progress.
The debate on how to create a better-working international monetary and financial system lies at the heart of our task of responding to globalisation.
Private capital flows – and the report also takes this view – are the main source of growth, prosperity and productivity. If our objective is to ensure that countries, both developed and developing, are able to take full advantage of the benefits of globalisation, the best option that I can picture is for financial markets and their operations to merge. Broad-based, deep-rooted and fluid financial markets will make funding investment easier, which will, in turn, enable economic operators to spread their risks more effectively.
This situation will prove beneficial for those operations that would otherwise be too risky for international investors, which will be of benefit not only to developing countries, but also to small and medium-sized businesses in our own countries.
The economic benefits generated by the globalisation of finance are the result of the links between markets and operators having become stronger. Because of the nature of these links, the upsets passed on within a modern economy as a consequence of this process of globalisation are more rapid, for the very reason that borders that existed twenty years ago have disappeared. It is true that amongst the risks we will have to face, there will be financial markets with excessively volatile exchange rates and share prices. A ‘contagious’ effect can occur between one country and others and it is possible that capital flows will fluctuate.
Within the Economic and Monetary Union we have stimulated stability and growth by means of macroeconomic policies and structural reforms, which are fundamental factors for strengthening our economy and for preventing – or rather, fighting against – these financial upsets.
Economic and Monetary Union, therefore, contributes to improving the stability of the international situation in our region. It is also true, however, that various alternatives have been put forward across the world. I agree with the thesis of Mr Goebbels’s report. There are no panaceas that will help us confront the challenge of consolidating the global financial system. The report makes this point very clear and I hope that its resolution will be read not only by those for whom this document is officially intended and who have a professional interest in these matters. I hope that it is also read by the people who are – legitimately – concerned at the direction in which the process of international economic and financial integration is heading.
The problems and challenges inherent in the integration of financial markets must be addressed in a broader context, which is what Mr Goebbels has sought to achieve in his report and what we in the Commission are seeking to achieve in the study that the Liège Ecofin meeting asked us to produce on how we can respond to the challenges of globalisation, which we are intending to present next February.
What has been happening in recent years? I would say that since the crises in Asia, we have made substantial progress. Efforts have been made to improve macroeconomic conditions, economies are today more resistant to external shocks and the number of countries choosing to abide by internationally agreed codes and standards in order to make their economies more transparent is continually increasing. The G7 ministers and the Monetary Fund have made progress in a few key areas, such as, for example, the international financial institutions, which clearly act with greater transparency these days. There is also the International Monetary Fund itself, which has increased its capacity and is fine-tuning its instruments so that they will enable it to analyse, assess and oversee the stability of the financial system more efficiently. I would also say that coordination between the various national supervisory authorities has improved substantially."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples