Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-03-Speech-3-174"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011003.6.3-174"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, why did my group demand this afternoon's debate on the Stability and Growth Pact? The reason given was that we were disturbed by certain utterances we have heard emanating from the ranks of socialist governments in the past weeks and months. The statements made by Mr Eichel, Mr Jospin, Mr Fabius, and other things that were said, all went along the same lines. For a start, they asserted that it was necessary in the present situation to soften the rules of the Stability and Growth Pact. That was the first demand. The second was that the Heads of State and of Government must be accorded the right to prescribe annual stability objectives to the European Central Bank. We take the view that both these proposals are extraordinarily dangerous, for the Stability and Growth Pact and the independence of the European Central Bank are the twin pillars on which rests the European Union's monetary system. These pillars must not be shaken. My group will always speak up in favour of maintaining the independent European Central Bank and the Stability and Growth Pact in their present forms.
Let us turn now to the resolutions on the table before us. Jointly with the Group of the European Liberal, Democratic and Reform Party, we have submitted a motion for a resolution. We negotiated with the Group of the Party of European Socialists, which stated that it was unable to agree to our resolution. What, though, is so bad about our resolution? It states that the Stability and Growth Pact should, in quite simple words, be 'retained'. Why can they not agree to that? Then they said: We want to put its principles fully into practice. Why not just agree to it then? We need measures against money laundering. You spoke about that, Commissioner. We need measures to destroy the financial background for terrorist acts. Why not agree to that? We must also be consistent in reducing monopolies in order to strengthen the competitiveness of our European economy. Why can they not agree to that?
Now for the second question: what counter-proposal does the other side have to offer? They put forward essentially the same ones over and over again: that the European Central Bank should cut interest rates. Or, on the other hand, that the Stability and Growth Pact, or the Member States' budget policies, should be relaxed. That is the Socialist policy mix. That is the potion concocted by druids to cure all the ills of our economy at a stroke and without effort. It would be nice if things worked like that, my dear Christa! But in reality they do not. Take a look at Japan, where this policy was applied and where it does not work. Consider the stock exchanges in the United States today, where it can be seen that it does not work. Look at economic history, where we see from the past that it has never yet worked. So I would like to urge you to reject these demands and support our resolution."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples