Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-13-Speech-1-054"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-05-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Distance marketing of consumer financial services2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20020513.5.1-054"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-05-13-Speech-1-0552
lpv:speaker	lp:Ria Oomen-ruijten2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; EMPL (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Temporary committee on foot and mouth disease (2002-01-17--2002-12-17)3 unknown; Christen Democratisch Appèl (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Delegation for relations with South Africa (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, it is very difficult to sum up this topic. It is a course of events that baffles me. Why? Because it is not Parliament that has adopted different positions on different occasions, but because the European Commission and the Council have suddenly moved from maximum harmonisation to minimum harmonisation. And I would invite Mrs Hautala and Mr Beysen to change this topic too. Politics may be the art of the possible, but if this way of going about things does not benefit the financial services sector nor the consumers, then I think that we should make a different choice. Allow me to give you another rundown of events, for you will then be able to judge for yourself. And I would ask you to bear with me. In May 1992, the draft directive on the marketing of financial services was submitted. This original draft included financial services; so it comprised all distance marketing plus financial services. This met with a great deal of resistance. Eventually, the common position was drafted, from which the financial services were deleted. This happened in 1995. The European Commission was in agreement with this. Parliament attempted at second reading to reverse this situation, but unfortunately lacked a few votes to do so. Then, a Green Paper was published in 1997. Parliament once again opted for incorporating financial services in this directive. We voted in favour of this. The Commission subsequently presented a draft directive in which it rightly proposed maximum harmonisation. Why maximum harmonisation? Because the consumer, wherever he may make his purchases in Europe, should be able to do so subject to the same rules, and must be given the same guarantees. Moreover, this also benefits the financial sector. What transpired? In the common position, minimum harmonisation was all of a sudden opted for. This minimum harmonisation will create a great deal of frustration within the market, as fellow MEPs have already pointed out. I therefore call on you, all of us, to revisit very carefully the first reading of this proposal in Parliament – for which I happened to be rapporteur – and to vote on this proposal after all and also to present it to the Council after all. I have understood that the Council too may have changed its opinion in the mean time. What is now before us, despite the heartfelt concern displayed by Mrs Berger, will, in my view, not lead to anything. And I have the feeling that a huge number of fellow MEPs, not only in this group, but also in other groups, will join me in voting out anything that is cloaked in minimum harmonisation, allowing us to start proper negotiations with the Council."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph