Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-17-Speech-3-120"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000517.7.3-120"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is, of course, always particularly nerve-racking when one has occasion to make a speech in the European Parliament before such a packed house. That said, it might also help one to overcome stage fright. What is decisive though, is not the quantity but the quality of the people in the audience.
I feel we should also take account of the fact that in the wake of the European Central Bank’s statement, the markets have, in principle, anticipated Greece’s accession to monetary union, and so if we were to reject this statement, it would not benefit the euro exchange rate in the least, but would, on the other hand, do considerable damage to the Greek economy. I believe we should bear this in mind when forming an objective assessment of the situation. Hence, we are in favour of Greece joining the euro zone, but with some reservations. The majority of my Group will vote in favour, however, as we have included several amendments in the Pomés Ruiz report that highlight our concerns.
Firstly, it is made quite clear that the Maastricht criteria must be applied in full to all future candidate countries, and no more precedents are to be established in this respect.
Secondly, there must be sustainability as far as the rate of inflation is concerned. I believe that if Greece were to step up its implementation of internal market directives, which actually enhance competition, then this would help to achieve this goal.
Thirdly, the proceeds from privatisation should be used to reduce debt. These are the conditions under which the majority of my Group will vote in favour of Greece joining the euro zone.
We are continuing the debate on the accession of Greece to the euro zone and, of course, we must have noticed that the tone of this debate has been influenced by the exchange rate weakness of the euro and enlargement, and we have kept in mind the fact that any decision we take now may set a precedent for future candidate countries. I feel we should take account of this throughout the debate.
At the same time though, we must stick to the facts. The fact of the matter is that the European Commission and the ECB have presented us with reports. Both reports state – the one from the European Central Bank does so with a few more reservations perhaps – that Greece has fulfilled the criteria of the Treaty of Maastricht. If one looks a little more closely at the facts and figures, then it is possible to discern positive and negative aspects. On the plus side, one cannot help but notice that inflation – which was still running at 20.4% in 1990, when Greece started the consolidation process – fell to 2% in March of the year 2000. That is undoubtedly a most impressive achievement.
The second important criterion is the public deficit. It was still at 7.6% in 1996 and fell to 1.5% in 1999. That too is a most laudable achievement on the part of Greek economic policy. However, there are also concerns to be registered here. First, there is the fact that the criteria relating to the inflation rate were only fulfilled very late in the day, in the course of the last few months, and that the lowering of excise duty must have had something to do with this. Then there is the question of total debt, which is still in excess of 100%, and is only inching towards the prescribed 60%. We have some weighing up to do here."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples