Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-19-Speech-3-223"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000119.8.3-223"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Commissioner, the problem does not lie in the ideology of the debate but in its political nature. As Mrs Randzio-Plath said, we must remember that the reason why certain Members want to revive this question is because of the recent international financial crises and their economic, social and environmental consequences which have been felt by all in some countries. The main objective of this debate is to look at the instruments available to the international community for stabilising the international financial and monetary system. In this respect, Mr Bolkestein, the motion for a resolution cannot be separated from the issue of the Tobin tax. If you look carefully, this proposed tax on capital is just one of several instruments aimed at forcing international investors to behave responsibly on the financial markets. Secondly, the motion does not say that we want a solely European initiative. This is why we explicitly refer to the autumn session of the International Monetary Fund so that the European Union, in other words the Commission and also the Council, can decide how it will defend the opportunity to stabilise the international financial and monetary system and introduce international taxation.
There should be no confusion in this debate. As environmentalists, we do not want an excuse for a motion. Although a study produced by the Commission would doubtless be interesting, we do not need another to add to those already available. We do need to obtain, from the Commission and the Council, in other words from each of the governments forming the Union, a clear, positive or negative, political stance. They must indicate whether they are ready to defend, within competent public bodies such as the International Monetary Fund in the first instance, the appropriateness of such a tax within the other instruments needed to stabilise the international monetary system. As for the argument that this initiative would increase uncertainty, very short-term capital movements are specifically intended to play on uncertainty and to bet on changes between currencies or various short-term financial assets. This argument is therefore not relevant.
I will not go into the basic issue any further for everyone has their arguments. However, I would highlight not only paragraph 9 of the motion, but also paragraph 10. We clearly expect a political stance to be taken with a very firm deadline of the preparations for the autumn session of the International Monetary Fund. We therefore demand, if this motion is adopted tomorrow, that the Commission and Council appear before Parliament to tell us what positions they will take on this occasion."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples