Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-04-20-Speech-2-161"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040420.7.2-161"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spokenAs | |
lpv:translated text |
".
We voted against the recommendation before us, for the following reasons:
Firstly, the rotation of nationals from the Member States on the Executive Board of the European Central Bank (ECB) has not been guaranteed. The ECB was not content with merely being the first Community body to break the representativeness rule by not comprising nationals of every Member State, or with its Statute being altered to ensure that members of this committee have permanent voting rights, unlike those on the governing boards of Central Banks, who exercise their right to vote on a rotation basis. In this area too we are seeing the consolidation of a cabinet consisting of the larger members, while smaller countries such as Portugal are excluded from decision-making at the heart of EU monetary policy.
Secondly, the nominee slavishly toes the line on monetary and budgetary orthodoxy, and on the prevailing trends in the EU’s economic and monetary policy. He also appears blithely indifferent to the economic crisis facing the Community. He is committed to the ECB’s key objective of price stability, and feels that the crisis is the result of structural reforms.
Furthermore, he sees ‘no need for changes in the current form of the Maastricht Treaty or the Stability Pact’, given that, according to him, ‘current problems are not the result of undue rigidities’ in the Pact, but the fact that come countries fail to comply with the commonly agreed rules."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples