Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-24-Speech-4-018"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-10-24"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Insider dealing and market manipulation2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20021024.2.4-018"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-10-24-Speech-4-0192
lpv:speaker	lp:Johannes Blokland2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; ChristenUnie - Staatkundig Gereformeerde Parti (2002-03-18--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation to the European Economic Area Joint Parliamentary Committee (EEA) (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 member; ECON (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Delegation to the EU-Slovak Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-04-30)3 co-chair; EDD (2001-01-30--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the concept of trust is a key one to any discussion about the economy. Our whole economic system is based on trust. And as long as trust is not betrayed, the economic system functions as we expect it to. Expectations of the financial markets are closely linked to the way in which legislative institutions, such as the Council, the Commission and Parliament, deal with unexpected circumstances. The financial markets expect to have regulations, but these should be unambiguous regulations, which are not open to many different interpretations. The concept of interpretation, in particular, plays an important role in the debate about prior knowledge. After all, what is prior knowledge and when do we talk about prior knowledge which has an actual effect? Article 1 of the directive mentions having ‘a considerable influence on the prices of financial instruments’ – a concept which ought to be explained, however, on the basis of the effect of the directive in practice. It is not possible to draw up one unambiguous rule which would apply to all situations. Events which have taken place in practice within Member States have led to regulations being drawn up in order to prevent or sanction fraud and insider dealing. This practice shows that in many cases an assessment of the facts is required based on a given situation. In my opinion, journalists are very much in a position to determine from specific cases in practice whether prior knowledge applies. After all, in their day-to-day work they have to judge whether something is ‘news’ or prior knowledge. The reason for which information is gathered or disseminated forms the basis for the assessment of whether prior knowledge applies or not. It is for these reasons that I will not support Amendments Nos 6 and 7. It is unsatisfactory to declare that technical modality does not apply to journalists in the exercise of their profession. Considering that an assessment takes place on the basis of facts and situations, reference should be made to existing rules and self-regulation within this professional group. It is also the case that an appeal to this professional group constitutes a question of trust. Although I believe that a number of matters should be regulated at Member State level, the arguments for harmonising the rules at European level are convincing. National legislation falls short within the international context of the financial markets. I support, therefore, the recommendation for a second reading by Mr Goebbels."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph