Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-10-08-Speech-3-089"

Predicate	Value (sorted: none)
lpv:spokenAs	member; JURI (2007-01-31--2008-12-31)3
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; ECON (2008-07-09--2008-12-31)3
lpv:spokenAs	member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (2004-08-31--2008-11-18)3
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Kansallinen Kokoomus (2004-07-20--2008-12-31)3
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation for relations with the United States (2007-03-15--2008-12-31)3
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China (2007-03-14--2008-12-31)3
lpv:spokenAs	member; FEMM (2007-01-31--2008-12-31)3
lpv:spoken text	"Mr President, I think it was Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell who said in Nice in mid-September that the worst mistake we made was not to include the financial supervisory architecture into the Maastricht Treaty. We should have dealt with this issue already, together with EMU final phase decisions. I completely agree with this view, and Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell is definitely not the only one who has said this. But whom are we to blame for the lack of progress on supervisory architecture? I do not think it is the Community soldiers we need to blame – and by Community soldiers I mean the European Commission, which has delivered, and also Parliament: as Mrs van den Burg said, we have been dealing with this issue since the beginning of 2000, and we have made several proposals to the Council, but the Council seems totally reluctant to move. I still wonder how it was possible to have the Lamfalussy regime in place. Maybe it was the deal between the UK and Germany to offer the CESR location to Paris which finally made the difference, but I think that in Council they have been totally unwilling to move forward on this issue. So now it is the right time; maybe it is too limited and too late, but at least something is also now being done in the Council. Parliament has made several very important proposals. In order of priority, these three are the most important: First, the mandatory colleges for all cross-border financial institutions, with legally binding rules on how they operate, how they share information and what kind of decision-making procedures they use. Second, improved legal status for the Level 3 Committees, and more effective working methods for them too. Maybe on this issue, the Commission could give a little bit more room for manoeuvre to Level 3 Committees, so that they would not only be consultative but also decision-making bodies in the future. And third, strengthening the role of the ECB in financial stability. The ECB should get more information. It should be linked to CESR and CEOPS and they should work more together. Finally I want to say something about the transatlantic dialogue. Now is not a good time to put the transatlantic financial services on hold. I know this is not the fault of the Commission but it mainly depends now on US actions, but I think the more you can do to keep that discussion going, the better it is. It is very important for the future…"@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(The President cut off the speaker.)"1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Piia-Noora Kauppi,"1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"on behalf of the PPE-DE Group"1
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2008-10-08"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Lamfalussy follow up - Future Structure of Supervision (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20081008.15.3-089"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2008-10-08-Speech-3-0902
lpv:speaker	lp:Piia-Noora Kauppi2
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph