Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-11-Speech-2-255"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030311.10.2-255"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spokenAs | |
lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I want to keep my speech on the Convergence Report 2002 – Sweden fairly short and, first of all, thank the rapporteur, Mr Olle Schmidt, on a sterling piece of work.
On 1 January 2002, the euro was introduced as the currency, in notes and coinage, of 12 European Union countries. The transition was very successful, and people accepted the new currency in a positive way. Worries about price increases proved to be more or less unjustified. As everyone knows, Sweden is not among those countries that went over to using the euro as a currency. The reason for this was, of course, mainly political. If Sweden is to be able to introduce the euro as a currency, we must however formally meet five convergence criteria.
The Commission and the ECB consider that Sweden fulfils the three criteria relating to price stability, public sector finances and long-term interest rates. That is all well and good, but Sweden does not fulfil the remaining two criteria, that is to say those relating to the rate of exchange and legal convergence. With regard to the rate of exchange criterion, the Swedish krona has obviously fluctuated in value in recent years. It should however be borne in mind that, when Sweden formally requests a reappraisal, this will be carried out in the course of a second reference period and against a background of expectations that may tend to increase exchange rate stability.
When it comes to legal convergence, it is essential for Sweden as soon as possible to introduce the change in Swedish legislation that is required if the euro is to be introduced. The outcome of the forthcoming referendum must of course be respected but, in my opinion, Sweden should, in the event of a ‘yes’ vote, already be prepared to prevent a delay in the introduction of the euro due to the absence of legal convergence.
With all due respect for the convergence criteria, the decision concerning Swedish participation in the third phase of EMU is political. It is a decision that will be made by the Swedish people. In the referendum of 14 September 2003, the Swedish people will decide for a long time to come which currency is to be used in Sweden. On the other hand, Sweden is obliged, under the Treaty of Maastricht, to become fully involved in EMU cooperation once the convergence criteria have been fulfilled. Unlike Denmark and Great Britain, Sweden has no special exemption clause, but we shall hopefully obtain a ‘yes’ vote from the Swedish people on 14 September. As a result, the Swedish Government need no longer, either intentionally or unintentionally, delay or avoid taking the measures whereby Sweden will fulfil the remaining convergence criteria.
I noted with satisfaction that Mr Olle Schmidt accepted Amendments Nos 3 and 4 by the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats. This will make it possible to obtain that broad support for the report desired by both the rapporteur and myself."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples