Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-11-10-Speech-3-135"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101110.16.3-135"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to make two comments. The first is addressed to Mr Gauzès. I would like to thank him specifically for his excellent work and cooperation. However, I also found the cooperation with the other shadow rapporteurs to be exceptionally good and constructive. I wanted to say that right at the start before I come to my points of criticism.
I can, in principle, accept and reinforce what Mr Giegold has just said. I could have supported the first compromise that we agreed on in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs in May of this year. Indeed, I was able to go along with the decision. However, what has now been produced as a result of further negotiations is, also in the opinion of my group, no longer acceptable and we can no longer support it. As I see it, everyone is entitled to his own opinion on the matter, but in my view, the Council has played an unfortunate role here. I will express this a bit clearer than one or two others have done. In my view, the Council has missed an opportunity here. It gave in to a considerable extent to the financial market lobby and used everything in its power to prevent an effective regulation at European level.
One morning, I received a call from a lobbyist, who said that if we really wanted to regulate private equities in this way, we would prevent development aid getting to Africa. A more absurd and obscure argument could not be found in this regard. These things have nothing to do with one another. Anyone who comes up with this sort of argument merely demonstrates the fact that he has no interest in meaningful and effective regulation.
However, this is not the concern of Parliament. On behalf of Parliament – and I would like to emphasise this once again – Mr Gauzès and other fellow Members fought for an effective regulation. That was undermined by the Council. I want to say this once again; this is passive marketing. This is a point that Mr Giegold has already mentioned. It is like someone being prohibited from selling rotten eggs at the weekly market if he advertises them, but if he does not advertise the rotten eggs and just stands there and sells them, then it is evidently legitimate. However, it is no different to what has been laid down here in the section relating to passive marketing. It provides an opening. We have a European regulation – that has already been said and I think it is a good thing. However, when the door is wide open for it to be circumvented through loopholes, then the question arises as to how effective this European regulation really is.
Private equities were originally regulated better. They are now relatively weakly regulated. A very important point – and here, too, I can only reinforce what Mr Giegold said – is the question of the information provided to the workforce. The original compromise stated that managers were obliged to inform their workforce of what they intended to do with the companies in which they had invested. What remains of this is the strained requirement for owners to inform their workforce and the works councils. You can imagine what will come of this – not very much. The Council has missed an opportunity here, and I hope that we will perhaps still be able to improve on it at a later date."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples