Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-03-Speech-3-079"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-12-03"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:The Stability and Growth Pact2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20031203.7.3-079"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-12-03-Speech-3-0802
lpv:speaker	lp:Georges Berthu2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation to the European Economic Area Joint Parliamentary Committee (EEA) (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 substitute; ECON (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; NA (2001-01-31--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Mouvement pour la France (2000-11-23--2004-07-19)3 member; AFCO (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with Canada (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the Ecofin Council of 25 November did not violate the Treaty when it suspended the sanction procedure for excessive deficits against France and Germany. Rather, it correctly interpreted Article 104, which allows the Council a political margin for manoeuvre throughout the procedure by giving it the choice of whether or not to proceed. It was the regulations of the Stability Pact that in 1997 hardened these rules by doing away with the Council’s margin for manoeuvre. However, in doing so, they did not comply with the Treaty. I would be curious to know what the Court of Justice would think about it if it looked into the matter. As far as France is concerned, it violated its Constitution in 1997 when, in spite of our warnings, it adopted a stupid Stability Pact that is now coming back to haunt it and that it is forced to violate in turn, creating a conflict with its partners. That is a good example of a bad manoeuvre. I hope that we are not going to make another blunder by approving the draft European Constitution, whose philosophy is exactly that of the Stability Pact: centralisation and rigidity."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph