Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-02-16-Speech-4-218-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2012-02-16"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Explanations of vote2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20120216.23.4-218-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2012-02-16-Speech-4-218-5002
lpv:speaker	lp:Bruno Gollnisch2
lpv:spokenAs	member; TRAN (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Front national (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 member; NA (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation for relations with Japan (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 substitute; BUDG (2012-01-19--2012-09-04)3
lpv:translated text	"How could anyone vote against a report whose aim, in the event a bank fails, is to guarantee that depositors are reimbursed up to EUR 100 000 within a short time limit, with every bank obliged to belong to a deposit guarantee scheme? However, the big question is this: what use is this when, in a country such as France, we know that citizens’ deposits are as high as around EUR 1.6 trillion and the guarantee fund does not even reach EUR 2 billion? We are trying to make people believe that an average deposit of EUR 24 000 per inhabitant can be covered by a guarantee of EUR 33 per inhabitant. This simply means that in the event that a major bank fails, it is unlikely that any guarantee will work without urgently calling on the State yet again, in other words, on the taxpayer. When a bank is ‘too big to fail’, therefore, it can always do whatever it likes. The aim is worthy enough, but, in the event of a disaster, its effectiveness is doubtful. The only objective of such a text is to maintain depositor confidence, which is the very condition of the banking profession."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph