Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-06-20-Speech-3-053"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070620.3.3-053"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, Minister of State, Commissioner, before I turn to Malta, Cyprus and the procedure, I should like with your permission to make a few preliminary remarks about the euro. There is no doubt that the euro is a very successful project. It is stable internally and externally. We should not forget this in today’s debate. Internally, we have low inflation rates; externally, the euro has become the second most important currency in the world and is very stable against the dollar. None of this has happened by accident. It is the result of a construction in which the Member States and the Commission bear the main responsibility: the Maastricht criteria in the Stability and Growth Pact – which has of course already been watered down under Commissioner Almunia’s leadership – the deficit procedure, the clear statistical data and the independence of the European Central Bank. Only if all of these factors coincide will the euro remain a stable currency in the long term. I am saying this as a preliminary remark, because I still need to address the procedure.
Of course the Treaty is clear, but the Treaty also states that the European Parliament has to be listened to. Commissioner, I will be quite frank: we will not allow our role to be reduced to that of an optional extra! The Commission – so I have just heard – has done everything to the letter, and Parliament has to create its own window. If that is the case – and that is what we say in the motion – then, should an interinstitutional agreement not be concluded containing the points that we will subsequently be adopting by a large majority, next time we will break off our consultations, as we also do for agriculture policy. We will not adopt these opinions as quickly as we have been asked to do so now for the third time. Let me make it quite clear: Parliament will not be treated as an optional extra, not by anyone!
I will now turn to Cyprus and Malta. I am glad that we can support an enlargement from 13 to 15 participating countries. In February, Malta and Cyprus requested a Convergence Report pursuant to Article 121 with the aim of obtaining membership. Examination of the data available – the Commissioner has described the undeniable problems in this respect – tells us the following: Cyprus has participated in ERM II for a long time; as of 5 May it meets the requirements in respect of long-term interest rates; per-capita GDP is good, at 85% of the EU average, and its economy shows substantial convergence. Nevertheless, it had a problem with the data, and specifically with the quarterly financial accounts. This was also discussed on 3 May.
We should also examine the clarity of the data from the point of view of the Commission’s responsibility. It is not enough for the Commission to say that we are dependent on the data and that the Member States have to supply it. The Commission is also responsible for these data being correct. We saw this in the case of Greece, where the Commission did not carry out a sufficiently thorough examination and six months’ later we had a nasty surprise.
Cyprus meets the conditions and Cyprus – and it had been criticised on this score – has also brought its Central Bank law into line, although it only did so some time after requesting the Convergence Report, namely on 15 March, that is over a month later. However, the law has now been amended, inflation is low, and although government debt is still over 60% it is heading in the right direction. We can therefore say today that we unreservedly support Cyprus’s accession to the euro zone. I am sure that the European Parliament will do so.
In Malta’s case the picture is similar, but with one exception. We support Malta’s accession. On Monday, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs voted in favour of the accession of both States by a large majority, almost unanimously – for Malta with 39 votes in favour and for Cyprus with 38 votes in favour and one abstention. With Malta, however, we had the problem that at the time that the Convergence Report was tabled the deficit procedure had not yet been closed. The Commission therefore tabled a Convergence Report that did not comply with Article 2 of the Protocol on the Convergence Criteria. This states that at the time of the examination the deficit procedure must be closed. That is a fact. We accepted the report nonetheless, but the Commission should not say here that it has done everything to the letter and that it is just this interfering Parliament that is disrupting its consultations with the Council.
Turning finally to our motion for a resolution, we have received the reports and letters from the President of the Commission, Mr Barroso, and Angela Merkel. Mrs Merkel has a difficult procedure to complete, as she has to listen to all 26 other Member States. Mr Barroso only needs one Commission decision. I agree that we should take a decision, despite the fact that many of our requests have not been met, but that is why we are now calling for an interinstitutional agreement. In this agreement, which should be adopted by the end of 2007, we call on the Council and the Commission to be more accommodating on the timing. Otherwise next time round – and it will probably be Slovakia – we will insist on our right to a period of at least two months for consultation. Next time we will not tolerate the schedule that we have gone along with now for the third time.
With this in mind we welcome the fact that Cyprus and Malta can become Members, but we demand reasonable consultation conditions from the Commission and the Council for the European Parliament."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples