Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-11-Speech-2-245"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030311.10.2-245"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, those politicians who launched EMU were bold and far-sighted. There were many who believed that the project would fail. Some even hoped that it would. Their fears have nonetheless proved groundless. EMU has been very successful. Now, further reforms are needed, however, as well as compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact by the Member States.
Overall, the introduction of the euro has been a painless process, especially in terms of the huge logistical work involved. Certainly, there have been complaints about price rises, but the general price level has not increased. Further investigations may, however, be needed, something that we are now also requesting in this report.
Three of the EU Member States are still outside the third phase of EMU: Great Britain, Denmark and Sweden, there being no special exemption rules in the case of Sweden. Today’s report concerns Sweden and the Commission’s biannual convergence report.
I believe that, as I hope you already know, Sweden ought already to have been a fully fledged member of EMU. When my work on the report began – and I want to take the opportunity of expressing my thanks for all the support I have received – there was still a lot of uncertainty about the Swedish Government’s views. Now, the situation is different, I am happy to say. In a referendum on 14 September 2003, the Swedish people are to say yes or no to the euro. Fortunately enough, events have taken on their own momentum, independently of both the report and myself.
Both the Commission and the ECB have recognised that Sweden has fulfilled three of the five convergence criteria: those relating to price stability, public sector finances and long-term interest rates. In two areas, Sweden is considered, however, not yet to have fulfilled the criteria. The most controversial of the convergence criteria is that relating to the rate of exchange because, unlike the other criteria, it has been so unclearly formulated. ERM membership must be viewed as a requirement, but the period of membership
be relatively short. The exchange rate criterion has, of course, also been applied flexibly to countries that have already introduced the euro. I am thinking in particular of Finland and Italy which were not, of course, a part of ERM2 for two years. The issue of membership of ERM2 is also significant and, of course, also very sensitive where the candidate countries are concerned. Because quite a few of them are well on the way towards adjusting to EMU, I would certainly advocate a degree of flexibility. I also noted that, in the course of a speech in Hungary the other week, the Commissioner was thinking along similar lines.
Another area in which the Commission and the ECB consider that Sweden does not meet the requirements of the Treaty is legal convergence. This has to do with the independence of the Swedish Central Bank. The issue has also been taken up in an exchange of letters between the President of the ECB and the Swedish Finance Minister. The ECB expressed particular concern about the lack of clear rules concerning transfers of reserves from the Swedish Central Bank to the national treasury. In his reply, however, the Finance Minister stressed that the necessary amendments would be submitted when the introduction of the euro was imminent, together with necessary changes to the constitution, even if time may be short, given Sweden’s requirement for an interim election in the case of constitutional changes. In my opinion, this does not mean however that Sweden is disqualified from the third stage of EMU right through to 2006 or 2007. One of the most important principles of the Union’s legal system is, of course, that EU law takes precedence over national law.
I would make bold enough to say that Sweden needs the euro. At the same time, I would also venture to say that the euro in fact needs Sweden. The Swedish economy is in good shape and can meet the necessary requirements. That is something I am able to say, even though I am a member of the opposition in my country. As I see it, it is a necessary and obvious step for Sweden to become fully a part of European integration in its entirety and to have the euro as its currency and coinage. Now, it is the Swedish population that will decide this on 14 September. The ‘wait and see’ approach championed by some of my fellow MEPs in Parliament richly deserves to be criticised. What would have become of European integration if Robert Schuman’s natural inclination had been to hesitate, or if, when the Berlin Wall was torn down, Helmut Kohl had been governed by short-term economic interests, or if Jacques Delors’ distinguishing characteristic had been anxiety? Nothing at all would have become of it. It is my hope and my conviction that, on 15 September, I shall be able, with my head held high, to come back to you, Mr President, and to you, Commissioner, with the message: ‘It was a ”yes”’ vote. The Swedish people want to be fully involved and to exert influence over both the new and the old Europe’.
In conclusion, I want to say that there is a certain confusion where the amendments are concerned. I nonetheless want to say, however, that I hope to be able to achieve as large and as broad a majority as possible. I have listened to the criticism and am able to accept that Amendments Nos 12 and 14 should be removed because their subjects are covered elsewhere."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples