Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-07-04-Speech-1-079"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050704.17.1-079"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Mr President of the European Central Bank, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has made this debate on the communication strategy on the euro rather broader and turned it into a discussion of the euro’s current state and what we should actually do with it. After all, this debate is taking place at a time when the entire political debate on Europe is under pressure, something to which I do not think we can afford to close our eyes. I believe that many of us, certainly myself included, at the time when the euro was introduced in 1999, and especially in 2002, had the feeling that it would bring Europe closer to its citizens, who – certainly those in the euro zone – would be clutching Europe in their hands on a daily basis and would thereby be helped to have a sense of closer connection with it. I think that it has to be said, though, that this has not been the case. Not only in my own country, but also in other countries in the euro zone or countries that could join, I have seen that the euro has, in some cases, proven to be a millstone. This is something which I very much regret, but it is a conclusion that we have had to draw.
That is, in actual fact, a crazy situation in the light of how well the euro is functioning, There are cheaper financing options available, the interest rates are lower than ever, which promotes investments and consumption and offers the consumer real benefits, for example in the shape of low interest rates on mortgages and cheaper loans. The ECB’s stricter approach to managing monetary policy has brought increased price transparency, and hence a stable environment for the euro and low inflation. Just look at the success stories of the countries involved in the 2001-2002 switch, where inflation was only 2.3%.
The euro has given the economies in the euro zone increased resilience against financial crisis. Without the euro, 11 September 2003, 11 March 2004 or indeed the 2002 accountancy scandals would have caused far greater turbulence. That has not happened. We owe this to the euro. The exchange rate risk has been removed, travelling within the euro zone has become easier, all kinds of paperwork has become redundant, as well as the cost involved in exchanging currencies.
Consumers benefit from the strong euro. Raw materials and oil on the global market are paid in dollars and the favourable exchange rate, in any case up to the referenda in France and the Netherlands, has resulted in relatively low fuel and food prices for European consumers. Trade has increased within the European Union: 10% across the board and 17% in countries such as the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium and Austria. I have not even mentioned the fact that the euro commands great respect on the international financial markets, as is evident from its important role as an international reserve currency.
Despite all these successes – and I think that this shows that the euro may well be one of the EU’s most successful, if not
most successful, project to date – we notice that many regular consumers do not seem to be in agreement with us. That means that we have a big problem comparable to that we encountered in the debate on the Constitution.
To what is this attributable? I think, above all, to the problem of inflation. Mr Trichet, in our monetary dialogue of 14 March, you said something I thought was very valid. I think that because we did not communicate well with the public about inflation, we lost some credibility in countries where the euro has now been introduced. I notice in contacts with citizens that this is nearly beyond repair. When I say: ‘Inflation has been very limited’, the response is ‘you are lying’. When I say: ‘yes, but there are statistical offices and Eurostat that can back this up’, they respond: ‘yes, but they are lying too’. Credibility is in short supply. It appears that we were unable to explain how inflation, which was real in 2002, has disappeared. Consumers were not born yesterday. Since we failed to explain to them what caused this inflation, everything is dumped on the euro. We have only ourselves, with all our institutions, to blame.
This is all exacerbated, of course, by all the commotion surrounding the Stability Pact, and so I am delighted with the amendment on that subject from the members of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats. The Socialist Group in the European Parliament has also tabled a sound amendment relating to the carry-on surrounding the ongoing failure of the Lisbon process to get off the ground. It is important that we should solve these problems, because the new Member States will soon be joining the euro. I think the report has been improved by the large number of amendments that have been tabled on this subject, also in the committee and by the Members from the new Member States. It is important that we strike the right note with them when the euro is introduced in those countries, but also with the citizens of the Member States currently in the eurozone, for it is their verdict that we will have to face.
That is also the reason why I would ask the European Central Bank to submit reports to us annually – not to talk only in bankers’ jargon and in economic terms about how well the euro is doing, but also about what the euro has really meant for ordinary consumers. It is unfortunate that, according to the ECB, or at least to Mr González Páramo’s letter to me, this would entail a huge number of methodological problems. I appreciate that this may be the case, and this letter was also written before the current crisis. I would still appreciate it greatly if the European Central Bank were to reconsider this request. Speaking personally, I would not mind if the Commission were to intervene.
It is easy to think ‘the euro is there, we have to put up with it now’. The responsible citizen refuses to accept this. It is a problem that we can solve. Given the way in which you, Mr Trichet, always come across to the committee, I think that you are ideally placed to solve that problem and, above all, that we – Parliament, the ECB and the Commission – would be able to do this quite easily if we joined forces."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples