Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-23-Speech-2-325"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030923.11.2-325"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the new directive on investment services seeks to order competition between three major structures: exchanges, the Internet and companies using internalisation. Competition between them over processing transactions will intensify as the European financial market becomes more integrated. Everyone knows that the City of London, which is also an aircraft carrier for American investment banks, has a strong lead where internalisation is concerned. Other companies such as
or ABN-AMRO are launching out into the trade with ambitious business plans.
I observe that in carrying out our task as legislators we have singularly lacked a sound economic analysis clarifying the nature of the competition entered into and its implications. For example, do we want the small European markets stretching from the South to the East to be piloted by a handful of global players in London?
In this House we are accountable to the general interest and not the interests of individual countries. That is why we have supported two main principles: quality of information and fair competition. Businesses that use internalisation harness huge resources, but they do not form the market. They manipulate it but they need it, which is why pre-trade transparency is crucial to the quality of price formation, in particular to prevent volatility, speculation and insider dealing.
The Commission proposal applied this principle of pre-trade transparency that Mrs Villiers initially wished to abolish. Later she accepted it. She has shown great professionalism, it has to be acknowledged. She has given ground, but a large number of traps and mines were adopted in the committee on her initiative that drain this requirement for transparency of much of its meaning and create legal uncertainty. This applies to the definition of businesses practising internalisation, bonds and the size of orders, the exemption for eligible counterparties and the notion of price improvement.
As it stands, the report that was adopted proposes a system of regulation that is inferior to that enjoyed by the United States. That is why we have requested a number of separate votes so as to remove passages that we feel are harmful. Our aim is not to conclude this at first reading at any price nor simply to seek a compromise between the various interests, but to adopt a resolution that really does serve the common good."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples