Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-01-16-Speech-3-136"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020116.10.3-136"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, first of all, I should like to thank all the speakers for their comments.
I wish to make a comment on enlargement of the euro zone. We have noted greater interest in the ‘pre-in’ countries in what is happening in our experience in the euro zone. Or rather, I would say that in the three ‘pre-in’ countries, considerable further interest has been aroused, which is reflected in some political attitudes that have been communicated or which we have seen in recent days. Admittedly, there are still some who criticise the euro and what some people in the Eurosceptic world are afraid of, since the short term problems have not occurred, is what will happen in ten or fifteen years’ time. Obviously, there is nothing we can say on this point. It is difficult to control what will happen in ten or fifteen years’ time, but I personally am convinced that by then we will have far fewer problems than we do at the moment in this regard.
What conditions will be imposed on the ‘pre-in’ countries in order for them to join the Union? Exactly the same as those imposed on the other countries, no more and no less. Compliance with the Maastricht criteria, with the additional factor of the
clause to which Denmark and the United Kingdom have the right. There will be no change either for the ‘pre-in’ or for the candidate countries. We take the view that the equal treatment of all Member States of the Union is a fundamental principle, which we should not alter under any circumstances.
A last comment on an issue that might be a minor one but which is, to a certain extent, the issue that has concerned us today: the practical problems involved in the introduction of the euro. Have businesses played the role of the bankers? No, they have not. Through the system of frontloading, businesses have acted as an incentive for the rapid take-up of the single currency. It is true that some practical problems have occurred, due more to pressure by some citizens to use businesses as a bank, when they have tried to change high denominations of national currency in businesses and not in the banks, as should have been predicted.
Have there been serious problems of counterfeiting? There have been neither serious nor less serious problems in this area. So far, we have not seen counterfeits that could technically be called ‘counterfeit euros’. There have been photocopies. There have been euros produced with scanners, but which are enormously different from the real euro and, consequently, these concerns, which are occasionally expressed, should no longer be an issue. The euro has an extremely high security factor, unlike some of the world’s other national high circulation currencies, and this should guarantee that this type of situation is not going to occur.
I would also deny the truth of some of the assertions made about the functioning of ATMs. There have indeed been practical problems. Anyone who goes to automated toll booths machines not far from here will see that some machines do not work with the currencies of every Union country. These are practical problems, whose importance we should not exaggerate: they are merely anecdotes within an enormously important and complex process.
Nor do I feel that there are major pricing problems or that prices in the sales will influence prices in January, as they have not done in the past, since they have never been taken into account.
Last week, speaking with the former chairman of Ecofin, Mr Reynders, we said that the clear lesson we have learned from this process is that the next time we change currency we must not do it on the first of January. But since I am sure that this situation will not arise, I would say that we have no need to worry about this problem either.
Ladies and gentlemen, many thanks for your immense cooperation during this period. It has been crucial to helping the good work of the Member States, to ensuring that the public has been better informed and also to providing encouragement for the Commission’s work.
I wish to begin by giving special thanks to Karl von Wogau for his involvement in this process over the last 22 years. We are sorry to see him leave the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, but we know that his skills will continue to help Parliament and the process of European integration in the Committee of Foreign Affairs.
Karl von Wogau said, in a reference to Jacques Delors, that it is impossible to fall in love with the euro, and yet Christa Randzio-Plath said that Europe’s citizens are happy. Both comments might be linked to one fundamental factor: the euro is the first aspect of European identity to affect all citizens of the Member States of the Monetary Union.
The euro is extremely important, as were the removal of borders or the internal market, which, nevertheless, only affect goods and citizens crossing the border at a given time, but it is also a piece of our European identity, which we use every day from morning till night, in all the countries of the Monetary Union and exactly in the same conditions. Because there are clearly also striking differences between us, this aspect, out of all our common aspects, must be highlighted as a very positive one, as the others have nothing to do with any form of unification.
From now on, the euro will give us notes and coins and a slight increase in economic growth, as a consequence of uncertainties being eliminated. It is true, however, and I am in agreement on this with some of the speakers, that the fundamental elements will emerge as a result of our potential capacity for growth or, to put it another way, as a result of implementing the Lisbon process in a more ambitious way than we have done so far.
We will be able to break free from the United States, as Mr Ruffolo suggests we would want to do. Nevertheless, experience and the year 2001 have shown us that being relatively independent in terms of trade does not protect us from the effects of a crisis in the United States as a consequence of the course which takes place due to the economic effects arising from the relationships between companies and between financial markets.
The exchange rate will be the real test of the euro. I have always said that the exchange rate was never an objective of the Union’s policy. Our objective for monetary policy is to maintain low inflation and we are convinced that a currency with low inflation is, in the long term, a stable currency, a popular currency, a currency that will provide refuge and is a currency that will have an important role to play in the economic world.
Apart from the purely economic aspects, however, what is happening with our institutional structure? Is the euro the beginning of economic government? I would say that the model we put together in Maastricht was based on a single monetary policy and on coordinated national economic policies. This is our model. And we have to work on ensuring that the euro is a success on this basis. I am not going to prejudge whether we should make more or less progress in the processes of political integration. It could be done according to the wishes of those that favour greater political integration, but I also realise that this is a decision to be taken by the fifteen Member States in other bodies, in other forums and following a different debate. Nevertheless, I am convinced that we can move ahead with the process of greater coordination between economic policies, which certainly does not mean the unification of our economic policies, because our situations are different and, consequently, policies must be applied consistently.
Today, like so often before, we have tended to confuse stability pacts with economic policy guidelines. Is the Stability Pact the problem for the Union’s economic policy? This is something we have discussed on more than one occasion in this House. I repeat what I have always said: the Stability Pact is nothing more and nothing less than a necessary factor which allows us to maintain a policy mix between budgetary policy and monetary policy, which facilitates a monetary policy with low rates of interest. Structural changes to our economies and the move towards growth, coherence between our national economic policies and Union policy as a whole with monetary policy must be managed by means of these broad economic policy guidelines. We have the necessary instruments; we have to perfect and improve them, but I think that the system is a good one. The policy mix will be one of the key elements of the Spanish Presidency, as the chairman of Ecofin stressed and I am sure we will have the opportunity in this House to debate this fundamental point. Of course, the structural reforms, as I said earlier, are still the key to the future."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"opt-out"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples