Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-03-Speech-4-012"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010503.2.4-012"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by thanking Mr Katiforis for his report. What exactly is this report about? In May 1998, resolutions were passed making economic and monetary union a reality. At the time, economic and monetary union and the introduction of a European currency were irreversible. What were they based on back then? First, the independence of the European Central Bank, in order to safeguard monetary stability and, secondly, the Stability and Growth Pact, the purpose of which was to ensure that the European currency cannot be jeopardised by the budgets. Because our first objective in introducing the European currency – and this is particularly true of my Group – was a stable currency for Europe.
We now have before us Mr Katiforis’s report on the implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact. We must remember what this Stability and Growth Pact calls for. It calls for balanced budgets and for countries which are still overly in debt to achieve a surplus.
At the time, when we were discussing the Stability and Growth Pact against the backdrop of the Maastricht Treaty, the important thing was not to exceed a new net debt level of 3%, which was the entry condition at the time. Today, the important thing is to achieve a balanced budget or a surplus. So what news on this front? The first item of news is positive: in the euro zone, i.e. in the twelve countries which have introduced the currency, which we also refer to as the European home market, we have on average, I repeat on average, balanced budgets. That is one very good point.
On the other hand, however, we must face the facts. We achieved this objective in a period of growth which we shall be unable to match next year, namely with growth of 3.4%, i.e. in a fat year for the purposes of economic policy. The Bible exhorts us to save in fat years for the lean years ahead.
Secondly, there were the UMTS licences, which gave our finance ministers a windfall.
Thirdly, we must bear in mind that we have age pyramids in store for us and that we need to make provision for the expenditure in store for us here.
I am firmly convinced that we have failed to grab this opportunity, we have failed to make proper use of this positive climate. What especially worries me is that some countries still have a very high level of overall debt and that, in some cases, these debts are still somewhat short-term in structure. We must face up to these risks. Which is why we also need to call for the consolidation efforts which have started – and which are impressive in some countries but insufficient in others – to continue. I have to say that my own country, Germany, gives me cause for concern, because our rate of growth is below the average in the euro zone. Nor have we managed to balance the budget, despite the huge windfall from UMTS licences in Germany.
Now to my group’s stand on the Katiforis report. We can support it, as it now stands. However, we are concerned about two proposed amendments, both on the same subject, namely that investments should be excluded when calculating the Stability and Growth Pact margins. We agree that investments are needed and that budgets should be restructured towards greater investment, but within the framework of the Stability and Growth Pact, which is why, unfortunately, we shall have to vote against the Katiforis report if these proposed amendments attract a majority in the House."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples