Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-25-Speech-3-056"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040225.5.3-056"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in 2003 the European Commission was obliged to revise its economic forecasts downwards for the third year running. The rate of GDP growth in the euro zone in 2003 fell once again, from 3.5% in 2000 to 1.5% in 2001, 0.9% in 2002 and 0.5% in 2003, which means that the European economy was close to stagnation. These problems started the debate within the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and have led to the report that I am presenting in this House today. It is a report that takes into consideration some important needs, first and foremost the need to properly understand what the Stability and Growth Pact currently means for Europe. The increasingly pressing question is whether or not there can be stability without real growth.
We have tried to answer this question because we realised that what happened when the Ecofin Council adopted its well-known position as regards the problems faced by France and Germany is that our Europe has different opinions and was divided on such a significant issue. There is no doubt that keeping the Stability and Growth Pact under 3% is an essential condition, especially today when – faced with enlargement – we must keep ordered and regular budgets.
This is why the members of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs insisted on countries from Eastern Europe being called upon to follow Europe’s lead, and balance their budgets and in future present a more encouraging prospect. Nevertheless, I also believe that we cannot continue to treat an important problem, such as that of the Stability and Growth Pact, as a political issue. There are large countries that have invested a great deal and which, in my opinion, also have the right, even the duty, to carry out structural reforms, for which appropriate deadlines are needed, for individual States to put their budgets in order. I am referring in particular to France, which has started to take this route, and to Germany, which has paid a considerable price for its efforts to reunite with the former East Germany. In this situation, we believe that public investment must be used to kick-start the stalled economy and that the value of the euro and the euro/dollar rate must be looked into.
As has already been stated by Mrs Randzio-Plath, whom I thank for her cooperation in drawing up these two reports, Europe is facing a situation in which it must determine its own precise and unique approach
independent of all economic links with the United States. In this regard, we must get started on the Lisbon strategy, on which we are seriously behind schedule. The plan is to invest more in research and, above all, to launch a policy that solves the global problems of unemployment and that, with development, allows our young generations to hope for
a secure
and fruitful working relationship in Europe.
These are the objectives of the important report that we have adopted and passed in the committee and which we will vote on tomorrow in this House, with a political and economic forecast that is in no way negative but which, instead, makes use of all of the work carried out by the European Parliament in this parliamentary term. We believe that Parliament is an institution that should have a greater say in all types of analysis and economic forecasting. In order to remain consistent, the European Parliament should, in future, play a leading role in major economic analysis forecasting and become involved in the valuable work that the Commission is already undertaking.
I would like to thank all those who cooperated and I hope that we can open a fruitful debate."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples