Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-08-Speech-3-126"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031008.11.3-126"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is surprising that company mergers, which are one response to the challenge of globalisation, are often dealt with under the heading of ‘cartel law’, which has nothing to do with them. Cooperation comes about quite legally, with the objective of maximising opportunities on global markets; it is an important element in the free and dynamic internal market. It therefore follows that they still have their problems, most of which arise when widely divergent enterprise cultures are brought together. The new structures that result make for more conflicts. Businesses are often slimmed down, resulting in severe job losses. If there is to be a single European internal market, it needs to be laid down in unambiguous terms precisely when mergers have to be reported. In its Green Paper, the Commission has already stressed that they are always to fall within its own remit where mergers have been reported to the authorities in at least three Member States, and that is also the line that I take.
I am convinced that this is where costly and time-consuming procedures in the Member States can at last be done away with. Rather than perpetuating the fragmentation that is already widespread, there may quite probably – as my colleagues have already pointed out – be some simplification and tightening-up, not to mention greater legal certainty. While this is going on, national competition rules must continue to apply in full, although they must not conflict with Community rules.
It strikes me that the imminent enlargement of our European Union will make the one-stop-shop system ever more important. If I may add a comment on the threshold value, our Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs proposes that the Commission should look into the merger of companies if their joint turnover in at least three Member States is greater than 10% of their overall turnover in the European Union. There is another point, Commissioner Monti, where I cannot support the Commission’s position. You seek to extend the definition of companies’ ‘economically dominant position’ to cover markets that are oligopolies, no matter when the merger comes about. Let me quote: ‘has a tangible and lasting influence on competition’. It is all too logical that mergers are meant to procure advantages over against competitors. I warn you against over-regulation. The markets would lose much of the dynamism that they need.
Mr Della Vedova’s report is sound, and my Group, that of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, is in absolute agreement with it. The Socialists have tabled a number of new amendments, and, Mrs van den Burg, we will be voting on them tomorrow. Much of what these amendments contain one can certainly live with – but not in this report and not at this juncture. We are the party of the social market economy, and nothing will change that, as Mr Karas quite rightly pointed out, but introducing small amendments into these positions is like applying small amounts of cosmetics. That is something we must formulate elsewhere; that must indeed be clearly articulated, and I believe that we can find a common mind if we do this somewhere else. I hope that it will be possible for one or other amendment to be withdrawn; perhaps we will manage to get a broad consensus by tomorrow lunchtime. I am firmly convinced that this report by Mr Della Vedova deserves one rather than our later being suddenly disunited. Perhaps the Socialists will have a few new ideas by tomorrow. That is very much to be wished."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples