Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-07-03-Speech-2-181"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010703.9.2-181"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, this issue has been widely debated and the position is clear for both the Central Bank and the Commission and Council: to participate in the euro means to fulfil the conditions of the Treaty of Maastricht. That basically means maintaining a period of exchange rate stability for two years, approximately, not from any old moment but logically from the moment they are members of the European Union and, in accordance with the interpretation of the Council of Ministers, they must be part of the exchange rate mechanism for a period of two years.
Some countries have raised the difficulties caused by reversing stable exchange rate systems such as they have at the moment (this is the case with Estonia, with its currency board linked to the Mark) and that it would mean returning to a system of greater flexibility and of currency flotation in order to retrieve a situation of stable exchange rates. For that reason, the official interpretation and application is that the situation of the countries which have a currency board, if they are linked to European currencies, is compatible with the exchange rate mechanism, although these decisions are clearly adopted unilaterally by the countries involved. To put it another way, the responsibility to maintain stability of the exchange rate falls to the national authorities and they will not receive any type of privileged treatment, apart from that resulting from their presence in the exchange rate mechanism. This is the situation which has been maintained and clearly
the interpretation must be that neither the Central Bank nor the Council nor, of course, we in the Commission, are in favour of ‘euroisation’ processes which in some cases have been suggested and which, in our view, in no event should allow entry to the euro through the back door or allow countries which do not fulfil the conditions set for all Member States of the European Union to benefit from the advantages of being in the euro legally."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"sensu contrario"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples