Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-03-Speech-3-185"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-10-03"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Growth and Stability Pact – Informal ECOFIN of 22/23 September in Liege2
dcterms:Language	"el"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20011003.6.3-185"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-10-03-Speech-3-1862
lpv:speaker	lp:Mihail Papayannakis2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation for relations with South-east Europe (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 member_of_the_bureau; EUL/NGL (1999-10-13--2004-07-19)3 substitute; ECON (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Cyprus Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 substitute; PETI (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 vice-chair; PECH (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Synaspismos tis Aristeras kai tis Proodou (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, so as to appease the Commissioner and the other honourable Members, may I state for the record that I am not a fan of deficits, of increasing public debt or of inflation. However, that is not the issue. Are we forecasting a slump, yes or no? Some say, wait and see what happens. But if it does happen, then it will be too late. Others say, wait and the problem will resolve itself. Some take cold comfort in the belief that our economy will rally once the economy rallies in the United States and totally ignore the fact that, with globalisation, if that happens, others will benefit from the recovery. All the wrangling, as a number of honourable members have already said, is about avoiding the notion of public intervention in the economy. I fail to understand why. What is the point in being dogmatic, when you have specific problems and, more to the point, the problem of a slump in front of you? Some of us can imagine various scenarios which marry public intervention with economic stability, that is, increased earnings, without creating the alarming fiscal competition which some people are projecting? The problem is, we need public expenditure, we have the potential to generate public earnings which do not affect the productive structure or development of the economy or its competitiveness. Surely you do not mean to tell me that you would have a problem if someone somewhere did something about annuities or the international speculators throwing hot money around on the stock exchange, or even about the excessive wealth and the frantic consumption of our inflated upper middle classes. We have no scientific answer. We are dogmatic. No to the public sector and no to a Europe which, if it did all this – because only Europe can do all this – would be a federalist Europe. Well, I have never heard such dogmatism in my life!"@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph