Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-07-04-Speech-1-087"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050704.17.1-087"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I shall naturally focus exclusively on the report by Mr Lauk, although I do believe that both can be discussed together.
I shall begin by commending you, Mr Trichet, on the outstanding quality of your report and on the way in which the information has been set out before us, in keeping with the rapporteur’s speech. Yet I also wish to say to the whole House that that is frankly not the point of this debate. What Parliament is set to adopt or reject is Mr Lauk’s report, and we must therefore give our opinions solely on Mr Lauk’s report.
It is abundantly clear to all of us that the main objective of the European Central Bank (ECB), as laid down in the Treaties in force, is to maintain price stability. We all know, however, that even within the scope of the current Treaties, the monetary authority is also responsible for fostering economic growth, for properly sustaining job creation and for boosting internal demand. The rapporteur has focused almost exclusively on the bank’s main objective of maintaining price stability, thereby overstating its importance; he has also sought to drum home, needlessly and
the institution’s position as regards the recent changes to the Stability and Growth Pact. In so doing, he has, in my view, put himself in a delicate and isolated position, one that we obviously cannot support. During the debate in committee, the Socialist Group in the European Parliament sought to remedy this shortcoming, but unfortunately the blocs that formed during the voting process prevented our points from being adopted. We therefore hope, in contrast with the rapporteur’s call, that these mistakes can be corrected in plenary. After all, there is no point in stressing positions and opinions that may be justifiable on the basis of one-dimensional economic thinking, but which say nothing to the citizens and which fly in the face of the day-to-day reality faced by businesses. The current EU crisis is not solely, nor even predominantly, an institutional crisis. Without any shadow of a doubt, this is a crisis of policies that have proved incapable of solving people’s actual problems, incapable of sustainably promoting economic growth and incapable of creating high-quality jobs.
The constant refrain that economic and social success can only be achieved by carrying out structural reforms is looking increasingly like empty rhetoric. This is firstly because structural reforms cost money and are payable per head, which means that expenses are incurred before any benefits are felt; secondly, because the nature of national public finances is increasingly less predisposed towards public investment, particularly the least visible kind of public investment that has difficulty attracting party support in the short term; and thirdly, because the restrictive and blinkered implementation of budgetary consolidation policies blocks any kind of effort focused exclusively on this reforming area, which, given the crucial nature of this area, is clearly an inadequate state of affairs.
To criticise the minor amendments made to the Pact by the Council, as the rapporteur does – and this places him alongside the most hard-line critics of those amendments – is, in my view, to overlook the wider picture in Europe and the EU’s economic and social problems. It is obvious that the ECB’s activities must be seen in the context of the absence of a European government model, which is a positive thing and is not the issue at hand. Mr Lauk attaches great importance to this – and it is indeed something that we can also think about – but what I am referring to is the conservative position, with which I cannot possibly associate myself. I therefore ask this House, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, to correct some of the mistakes contained in the report by Mr Lauk."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples