Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-12-14-Speech-3-084-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20111214.6.3-084-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, I should like to thank the Members for a very serious and substantive debate and for their support for this regulation and for the Commission’s actions in this regard.
Concerning the question posed by Ms Bowles on the literature behind this scoreboard, the Commission is currently working on background papers that will explain the economic rationale underlying the choice of indicators, including the relevant economic literature and the determination of thresholds. I can commit myself, the Commission, and even DG ECFIN to providing you with these background papers concerning the underlying economic rationale.
Ms Podimata referred to a certain British financial media source. I do not think its words are sacrosanct. I recall, for instance, that in that source, the euro area was not described as a small open economy, but I have a feeling that some commentators consider that the euro area is a large, closed economy. It is not a large closed economy. Instead, it is a large open economy that trades a very large share of its GDP with the rest of the world. This has obvious implications for the construction of our analytical mechanism of macro-economic imbalances.
The legislation enshrines the approach of intelligent symmetry, whereby surveillance covers both deficits and surpluses, but clearly underlines that there is greater urgency in tackling large deficits. Moreover, policy responses need to be differentiated. I refer to the alert mechanism report which, in Article 3.2, states ‘The assessment of Member States showing large current account deficits may differ from that of Member States that accumulate large current account surpluses’.
I think the background noise suggests that it is time to close this debate. It is not very conducive to analytical debate on macro-economic imbalances, so I suggest we continue our dialogue in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs shortly."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples