Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-11-Speech-2-157"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-03-11"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:ECB Statute2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030311.7.2-157"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-03-11-Speech-2-1582
lpv:speaker	lp:Astrid Lulling2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP-ED (1999-09-16--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; ECON (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Parti chrétien social (1999-09-16--2004-07-19)3 substitute; AGRI (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (2002-02-06--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, let me make it clear from the outset that I did not vote for the report that was adopted yesterday evening in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Certainly, our German rapporteur relinquished his initial proposal to give each eurozone country a vote in the ECB Governing Council but to counterbalance this exclusively with the represented population. I would remind you that the ECB Governing Council examined a similar proposal by the Bundesbank during its lengthy deliberations and finally rejected it. Why? Because in a eurozone enlarged to 25 or 27 members, it means that four large Member States would have a de facto veto in the ECB Governing Council at the other countries' expense. This is unacceptable. Even if – as was agreed yesterday as a compromise in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs – the two objective criteria of GDP and TAPs were additionally considered, this would result in a far less balanced system than the ECB model, which only uses these two criteria for ranking the Member States that are granted voting rights in a rotation system. Of course the ECB model is new and takes time to adjust to, but it is not so complex and lacking in transparency as to make it incomprehensible to those who have to deal with it. That would be an indictment of the Member States' politicians and their central bankers! Ultimately, a currency is influenced by economic and financial strength rather than by a country's population. The ECB's proposal reflects this truism. Another reason why I did not endorse the so-called ‘compromise’ amendment is that it would lead to what amounts to renationalisation. It envisages even more enhanced competencies for the enlarged Executive Board of nine members at the expense of the ECB Governing Council, which currently meets twice a month, but which – with as many as 27 members in line with the Committee's proposal – could henceforth naturally only play a subordinate role. I hope that the Council will endorse the ECB Governing Council's far more balanced recommendation and that this can be ratified before enlargement – for the scenario which is now being proposed would deal a fatal blow to confidence in the euro."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Applause)"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph