Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-26-Speech-2-098"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991026.3.2-098"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President of the Central Bank, I am speaking on behalf of the Italian Radical Members. Certainly, this first report by the European Central Bank is compensating for the launch of the euro and you and the Governing Council of the bank are taking on a great responsibility. The Huhne report certainly contains positive elements, especially as regards the request to the European Central Bank for more information regarding the grounds for the decisions it adopted through the publication of concise Minutes including dissenting opinions as well. However, there is a point in the report which, Mr President, in my opinion is completely unacceptable. I am referring to point 11, which states that Parliament regards ‘the reduction of 50 basis points in interest rates on 8 April 1999 as appropriate, and welcomes in particular the reasons given for it’, which tells us that the cut in rates supported the general economic policies in the Community.
Regarding the method, I wonder why on earth Parliament, in discussing the 1998 report of the European Central Bank, feels the need to include its approbation of a specific measure which the European Central Bank will give an account of in its next report – the 1999 report. Moreover, how can we consider judging the effects of the manoeuvre on taxes after only a few weeks? And what sense is there in Parliament giving an opinion of one single act of the Central Bank?
Considering this matter further, I find this approbation totally out of place. Yesterday, both the head economist of the Central Bank, Mr Issing, and Vice-President Noyer implied that a fresh increase in taxation is imminent. Does this not maybe prove that the decision taken in April was wrong, given that in the meantime there has been no unexpected shock? And was the long-term tax increase not due to the loss of credibility owing to that very cut? We have the suspicion, actually more than a suspicion, that that decision was made following political pressure – for example, Oscar Lafontaine – and that Parliament, with today’s approval, wishes to confirm the move towards a Central Bank which is subordinate to political requirements or even electoral interests. I believe that the Central Bank’s strategy must focus exclusively on currency and prices. It would be suicide, as today others have repeatedly advocated, to think that European leaders can put pressure on the Central Bank so that it will make up for their inability to relaunch the economy through structural reforms, liberalisation of the markets – the job market first and foremost – and tight budgetary policy which must be coupled with a reduction of the tax burden on people and firms."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples