Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-14-Speech-3-337"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011114.12.3-337"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, on 26 October 2000, I explained to Parliament why the current level of bank charges on cross-border payments in Europe are due to technical obstacles which will disappear in time, or so we hope, but which are currently unavoidable.
Under these circumstances, the reason why some Members are portraying them as evil is because they are inexorably seeking to achieve a uniform internal market and because there has been a backlash from the pro-euro propaganda, which promised the impossible. Having made these points, I shall leave it there.
The proposal for a regulation that is before us today belongs to the next stage. Since the market is putting up some resistance, it is proposed that we use force to make it submit, by decreeing compulsory equality of bank charges on internal transactions, as on cross-border transactions. We believe this text is untimely, not only because it denies the realities of the market, which will exact their revenge in one way or another in the future, but for four other reasons.
The first is that it undermines subsidiarity, because this issue should be a matter for Member States. The second is that it undermines the freedom of pricing, which we actually believed was carefully safeguarded by the Commission. For the euro, however, which of our grand principles would we not allow to be sacrificed? The third is that it undermines the commitments repeatedly made to use regulation as sparingly as possible because, in being directly applied to the Member States, such regulation undermines the national parliaments’ power of transposition, which is, in fact, perfectly legitimate. The fourth and final reason is that this will lead to many rather veiled forms of unequal treatment of citizens, since the actual, but banned, costs of cross-border payments will have to be passed on to other banking products.
There, then, are many more reasons than are needed for rejecting this regulation."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples