Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-03-Speech-2-312"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010403.13.2-312"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, in my opinion, the speeches I have just heard, particularly that of Mr Galeote, could be misleading, for they imply that Parliament is, in some way, calling upon the Commission to consolidate the golden share, to strengthen the special powers of States so that they can, to some extent, protect markets being liberalised against markets in which monopolies with a high degree of liquidity operate which might take over the liberalised markets. In my view, this would be an erroneous impression, for Parliament must speak out, loud and clear, in protest against the golden share and against all the instruments preventing the establishment of a genuine, dynamic internal market in the sectors which have traditionally, in recent decades, been occupied by the State in Europe.
I am speaking on behalf of the Italian radicals. In 1997, we introduced a referendum in Italy against the 1994 law which established the special powers of the golden share in Italy. Eighty per cent of those who voted in that referendum – almost 10 million Italians – said yes, calling for what we wanted, the repeal of those rules which were hampering – as they still do today – the establishment of a genuine competitive market on the capital market for privatised companies. I regret to say that, as often happens, those votes were thrown away, destroyed in the Italian climate, where the Constitution and expressions of the citizens’ will often count for no more than waste paper.
In 1998, the government headed by Romano Prodi, the current President of the Commission, was subjected to an infringement procedure by the Commissioner for the Internal Market at the time, Mario Monti, for using this golden share. In 1999, a decree was issued which – in that typically Italian way – modified the golden share without making any substantial change. Well then, in my opinion, the articles of the Treaty should be sufficient to prevent a State company operating a monopoly from taking over a company on the liberalised market. This would be abuse of a dominant position, State aid. There is no need to provide for companies to have the golden share to prevent them from being taken over by a State-owned company from another Member State. Otherwise – as frequently happens – this excuse is, in actual fact, used to consolidate national governments and majority parties' power of veto over the free placing on the market of public companies; the financial markets are unable to establish the best, most efficient, optimum distribution of power and therefore of the management of companies in sectors which are highly important, key, crucial sectors for Europe, such as the telecommunications or energy sectors in particular. Moreover, the golden share means that companies which are being placed on the market bring less cash into the State coffers because a company is being bought over which someone who has not invested even a penny has the power to make strategic decisions: governments lose money by privatising the golden share. There is also the danger, with the golden share, of nationalising private investment: the citizens, the investors, buy companies which are under the thumb of the State, governments and therefore political parties.
The golden share gives rise to a remarkable conflict of interests between the State which remains the manager and, to some extent, the owner of the liberalised companies, and the State which should have the sole role of regulator guaranteeing the competition which protects the interests of the citizens. This is one of the ways in which some of the European States – Italy, for instance – continue, in actual fact, to manage large parts of the economy of the country and prevent there being in these sectors – the telecommunications and energy sectors, for instance – efficient, competitive companies and markets, companies able to withstand international competition. The fact that
in Italy or
in Germany or
exploit positions of monopoly in order to go and grab areas which have been liberalised in the markets of other countries must be opposed as dominant positions, as State aid, but this cannot be used as an excuse to allow countries which are moving towards a market-based economy to keep powers in companies which are supposed to have been privatised.
In fact, the golden share has been in the past and continues to be a barrier to the creation of genuinely European public services companies. It removes companies from market dynamics and governments continue to interfere, continue to think they know best who should buy a company, following certain lines of reasoning which are not the most effective for the market, thus penalising the citizens. We must not advocate that governments use the golden share as a shield to prevent companies being bought on the market in order to direct the purchase of privatised companies towards preferred groups because, in the long run, this leads to non-competitive markets, as is happening now.
This is why I have some reservations about the resolution to be put to the vote on Thursday. I believe that Parliament must speak out, loud and clear, if possible avoiding a compromise, with nationalisers and liberalisers fighting it out, and state clearly that the articles of the Treaty relating to the movement of capital and freedom of establishment must be fully enforced in the light of today's economic market conditions, not those of 40 years ago.
There is the danger that the State monopolies, which still exist, will lord it over the liberalised markets in Europe, a danger represented by the abuse of the dominant position and State aid. This is the root of the matter."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples