Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-21-Speech-1-054"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021021.4.1-054"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for this debate, which has not been purely academic, as it could have been, given its chance, idiosyncratic origins; it has been a weighty debate on the economy which I hope can be repeated in the future. The different positions – do not worry, Mr Poettering, I never mix personal relations with political opinions – which have emerged in this debate have revealed something important, namely that the system we are working with is unbalanced. There is an
coercive instrument to ensure that the necessary rigour is respected – although, thanks to the lack of authority, a genuine obligation is not always imposed: it is often an invitation rather than an obligation – but there is no
instrument to create the conditions for balanced development, to help the countries which are bound together in the single currency to achieve balanced development in terms of healthy public finances and employment. We do not have an economic policy which we can evaluate and monitor together.
As a result, we will be in danger of breaking the code of Community living – and that really would be stupid – if we do not employ the political astuteness which we need to foresee disagreements and tension and to avoid a situation where we have to stand by, powerless, until the time comes to clamp down, with the risk, as we have heard, that the Member States will indulge in bargaining.
This is the direction the Commission wishes to take, so let us get started, as Commissioner Solbes said, and continue to exploit all the possibilities provided by the existing instruments, but we must ensure that European economic policy is no longer dictated purely by accounting instruments.
A number of specific references have been made to the European Central Bank, but the European Central Bank is doing its job properly, you know. The problem is that we cannot leave it without support! We have a European economic policy in which, thank God, there is a Central Bank which has been successful from the start, and for this we must give it its due because it really did start from scratch. It has been a Herculean task to create a control and monitoring structure, an economic financial analysis structure, from scratch, with 12 different countries, and we must safeguard the independence of the Central Bank but not its isolation.
We are here today holding a debate, and the debate has revealed that the issue of an economic policy authority has not been resolved. Mr President, I would like a further debate to be held on this matter. Indeed, we share a single currency, and this means that we cannot devalue, it means that we cannot vary interest rates, it means that we really are tied to a system which is strong and rigid in many respects. Well then, if we want this system to work, we must establish an authoritative institution to help us coordinate economic policy headings. I am not pushing for the Commission to get the job here – I am putting us all forward as candidates. I have never said that this authority should necessarily be the Commission, of course not! This authority needs to be created, to be established, to be formed because we have to protect the single currency together, and we therefore have to move together towards the future.
I can assure you that, in my interview – which, I would stress – was a long one – the word which has been the subject of so much criticism referred not to the Stability and Growth Pact, as has been reported, but to the fact that the Pact has been interpreted too literally. Reference has been made, for example by Mr Abitbol, just now, to Saint Paul: the problem is the difference between the spirit and the letter. We are enclosed, shut away in a corner, and we have to work according to the letter of the law, and it is the letter which is stupid. We have to have instruments, we have to use politics, we have to use the spirit of the law if we are to interpret our people’s problems. Remember that, when there are discrepancies between different countries’ economic policies, things could come to a head at any moment. In this sense, Mr Watson, it was not by chance that I brought the subject up. I gave the interview on purpose, although you are right – I could have discussed it with Parliament, and I will do so whenever you call upon me to discuss these matters, for they are the basis of our Community life. I broached the subject because of the work of the Convention. We need to debate these issues so that the Convention realises that we are experienced, that we are capable of addressing these issues.
Another reason why I raised the matter is that the European people are calling upon us to discuss economic affairs not just in terms of finance and balancing accounts
but in terms of things that affect their everyday lives, and I can assure you that this does not mean I have been lax or too flexible in economic matters. In the past, I have even had the courage to impose a Europe tax on my country – specifically labelled a Europe tax – because I feel that the citizens have to be given clear, accurate information. Clearly, we in this House have to discuss the issue of the spirit and the letter of the Pact, with due regard for the Pact and within the constraints of the current situation where we have to apply it to both large and small countries. This is another of the problems which have emerged during this debate: do you apply equal rigour in the event of deviation on the part of France, Germany or Italy, whose deficits are approaching or have already exceeded 3%? I can assure you that, if this information is confirmed by official notifications or Commission statistics, as agreed in the Amsterdam declaration, the Commission will apply the measures laid down in the Treaty and the Pact, it will discharge its duty towards all because that is its job.
I have said, however – and I reiterate it before the House – that this is not enough! It is not enough to ascertain the existence of the deficit, closing the stable door after the horse has bolted! Here, we have to develop a common economic policy – we owe it to our citizens! That is why the word I used may have appeared rather strong. My apologies to the academics, but I believe that this has served to show all of us what we must do in the future."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples