Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-16-Speech-4-178"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060216.20.4-178"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I would first of all like to thank Mr Hamon for the enjoyable way in which we have worked together on this report. It has been an interesting and, I hope, ultimately productive example of collaboration between our respective groups.
The PPE-DE Group welcomes the IMF’s review of its activities and of its future direction. The Fund has played an important role in the global economy for more than 60 years and we want it to carry on doing so, but to do this it needs to refocus on its core mandate of promoting financial stability and supporting countries with balance of payments difficulties. It has a key role in supervising the world’s monetary system and helping to prevent and deal with crises. Its surveillance role needs to be stepped up to concentrate on reducing global financial instability and advising individual countries about financial stability, economic growth, exchange rates and reserve accumulation, because these are essential preconditions if countries are to avoid and get out of difficulties and poverty traps.
The Fund has been criticised for its conditions when lending to financially stretched countries. I share the concerns that these conditions may have been too rigid at times but, as a responsible lender and custodian of funds, the IMF must be able to impose conditions when lending money. The requirements it sets out are there to improve a country’s economic situation by opening up markets and promoting sensible economic policies, good governance and sound financial management. Often, indeed, the IMF is a useful scapegoat for governments having to force through unpopular reforms.
Turning to Europe’s role in the IMF: as Mr Hamon said, the EU is currently spread over nine constituencies – I thought it was ten but perhaps he is right in saying nine – and has lacked any semblance of a cohesive position in setting IMF policy. A first priority, therefore, should be better coordination. There are advantages in being in different constituencies, not least that the EU has greater voting power than any other part of the world and can better influence non-EU countries within these constituencies, but this counts for little if our Member States are at sixes and sevens. A single EU seat is not a realistic goal just now, even if it is an aspiration for the long term, but much more could be achieved right away by better coordination of Member States’ positions.
My group will submit some amendments and some split votes in order to help improve Mr Hamon’s report which, overall, we hope to support."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples