Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-15-Speech-4-235"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-02-15"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Stability plans in Ireland and France2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010215.11.4-235"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-02-15-Speech-4-2362
lpv:speaker	lp:Johannes Blokland2
lpv:spokenAs	co-chair; EDD (2001-01-30--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij - Gereformeerd Politiek Verbond - Reformatorisch Politieke Federatie (1999-07-20--2002-03-17)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; ECON (2000-02-02--2002-01-14)3 member; Temporary committee on human genetics and other new technologies in modern medicine (2000-12-13--2001-11-29)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Slovak Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-28--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Slovenia Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, Mr Solbes Mira, the economic achievements of Ireland in the past decade provoke great admiration. Anyone comparing the macroeconomic indicators of the EU Member States, cannot escape the conclusion that Ireland is at present out in front. The criticism by the European Commission of the policy of the Irish Government therefore seems very strange. But on closer inspection it is nevertheless correct. Given the overheated state of the Irish economy, there is unmistakable evidence of a pro-cyclical policy when the Irish Government lowers taxes and increases government spending. And if Ireland is not given a reprimand now, it will be very difficult to criticise the policy of Member States in future. Meanwhile it remains striking that a small Member State should be attacked, while the economic reforms and performance of the large EMU Member States in general lag behind. Could Commissioner Solbes Mira indicate if he is aware that the criticism of larger Member States in the present recommendations seems to be couched in more friendly terms than in the case of smaller countries. When it was decided to launch the Economic and Monetary Union back in the spring of 1998, I pointed out to the Commission the precarious situation regarding retirement provision in some Member States. Your predecessor, Mr De Silguy, simply refused to listen. I now notice that the Commission is voicing cautious warnings about this, addressed particularly to France and Italy. The ECB also expressed itself in disturbing terms on the subject in its monthly report for July 2000. If policy continues unchanged the burden of pension contribution will go through the roof in most Member States. In the case of one Member State to as high as 20% of GDP, maintains the OECD. Remarkably, the present election campaign in this Member State is being fought on tax reduction! The longer the Member States concerned delay in tackling the pension problems energetically, the greater future budgetary problems will be. There is a financial time bomb ticking away. Meanwhile the Commissioner is still not speaking unambiguously. Surely it cannot be acceptable for necessary reforms to be repeatedly postponed, thus passing burdens on to future generations? I expect you, at the forthcoming spring summit in Stockholm, to set out the rules and specifically warn the Member States Italy, Germany, Spain, Belgium and France. On this point Ireland has everything well under control. It would be opportunistic to conceal this. Because in the future Ireland, the Netherlands and others will be directly or indirectly burdened with the consequences of problems that their EMU partners knowingly and wilfully left unsolved."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph