Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-06-06-Speech-1-066-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110606.17.1-066-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Commissioner, basically, I am wondering why you wanted to make that statement. Indeed, you ended your speech by saying: ‘All our time is essentially taken up today by the reform of economic governance; the issue of the external representation of the euro area will be discussed at a later date’.
Please forgive me if I disagree with your approach, because one of the main problems in the European Union today is the issue of the external representation of the euro area. It is clear today how the currency war could easily destroy all the efforts that citizens in the euro area are being asked to make in the name of austerity and of an improved sovereign debt situation. Therefore, Europeans cannot be completely demanding internally and, at the same time, fail to show any interest in how their currency, tossed about as it is by the markets on the international stage, is faring externally. There will be no internal protection without external protection.
Please forgive me, then, if I disagree with your approach on this point. I know that the task is a difficult one, but the European Parliament has, for several years now, supported the idea of moving towards an external representation of the euro area, especially within the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
We must admit that, when Dominique Strauss-Kahn was appointed as the Managing Director of the IMF, the situation was very different: there was talk of people taking it in turns to manage the organisation. Mr Strauss-Kahn himself said that he may be the last European to head the IMF. Since then, however, the situation has changed considerably. The region in which IMF intervention is crucial today is Europe. We can see that, behind the IMF’s intervention, the intervention of the large US investment banks has a significant role to play. We can also see that, sooner or later, the issue of the US economic situation could be raised and could legitimately be debated within the IMF.
All that paints a much more complex picture than simply deciding whether this person or that person should preside over the future of the IMF. Of course Europeans should be represented – they should rightly play a part in what is one of the major institutions – but, more fundamentally, what I want to know from you is: what kind of policy do we want to conduct on the international stage? What kind of mandate should a European carry out on the international stage, given the efforts we are making internally, given the influence of the markets outside the European Union and the impact they have on investment, speculation and employment in Europe?
We also think that whoever manages the IMF in the future will face a huge task: he or she must not destroy the progress made by Dominique Strauss-Kahn when he shifted ever so slightly the boundaries of what was the Washington Consensus. We can already see a hardening of attitudes today within the institution; we think that this is the wrong approach.
Finally, the issue of the IMF’s place within the United Nations system will also have to be raised, and if the Europeans do put forward a candidate, they must ensure that the mandate that they give to that person is structured in such a way as to enable him or her to push for a form of global governance that rises to the post-crisis challenges that we face."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples