Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-17-Speech-3-044"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000517.3.3-044"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the Group of the Party of European Socialists endorses the rapporteur’s proposals because it is quite clear from the first published report on the stability and convergence programmes that these programmes, along with the review, are not a mere exercise, rather, for the very first time within the European Union, and especially within the euro zone, it is understood that economic developments, the financial perspectives, and also commitment in terms of budgetary policy, are not just the affair of an individual Member State, but of all Member States. That is why it is right that the European Parliament should take these reports seriously, and go so far as to examine once again not only whether monetary union has created an internal market, with no currency fluctuations or attendant negative effects on growth and employment, but whether the Member States have actually kept their promises; i.e. those that belong to the euro zone and those that are to submit convergence programmes.
After all, monetary union is actually laid down and provided for in the Treaty of Maastricht as a Community of stability. Only States that have demonstrated their ability to maintain price stability and financial solidity, and that can help to make the monetary union a real Community of stability, are able to join monetary union. Exactly the same applies to Greece. We will have further debates on this. To Mr Karas I have to say that the requirements we make of Italy and Belgium, for example, regarding debt reduction, will, of course, apply to Greece as well. We will also keep an eye out for overly optimistic data being submitted in this regard. Greece must be able to make the grade in this respect too.
It is evident from the annual exercise concerning the stability and convergence programmes that the EU Member States are seasoned partners that are able to withstand criticism. They must allow their partners to scrutinise their economic and budgetary status quo, and accept and act on their conclusions. Hence, the second round will be far more important than the current one, because, for the first time, actual criticism has been voiced. We have yet to see what effect this will have on future programmes.
One matter of regret to my mind though, is that the EU Finance Ministers are not yet using the working method of the Luxembourg Process on the employment guidelines as a benchmark. It is also regrettable that, consequently, it has not been possible to add to the progress made on the stability and convergence front, because the programmes have not been compared in terms of quality. I therefore believe that if these points were to be taken up, it could further enhance harmonisation, both in the context of the development of the internal market and of the euro zone. The same applies to coordination of the taxation systems. Tax coordination worthy of the name must at last prevail within the EU."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples