Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-01-13-Speech-2-295"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040113.12.2-295"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Madam President, I thank the Members that have put questions to the Commission. First, I should like to deal with the subject of the services directive. I will then move on to the other subject.
I thank Mr Harbour and Mrs Villiers for their support for the directive, or at least for what I said about that directive in general terms. Mr Harbour said quite frankly that approval by Parliament is all very well, but what about the other half of the legislative body in the Union – the Council? He is quite right in saying that the Council – not only on the issue that he mentioned, but others as well – has been laggardly. That is very bad. Sales promotion, the example quoted by Mr Harbour, is only one example: there are others.
Mr Harbour asked for the Council to accept a serious timetable. I wish I could achieve this. As Mr Harbour knows, the Commission is very powerful, but it is not powerful enough to force the Council to stick to a timetable. We are in the hands of the presidency. Mr Harbour can count on the Commission to impress upon the Irish presidency that it should do some serious work on this. However, when all is said and done, the presidency presides and the Commission plays the role of the Greek tragedy chorus: it looks on, but there is not much it can do but say 'Woe!'. Nevertheless, we will chivvy the Irish presidency along, and tell it to get on with the job.
Mrs Villiers complained that financial services are not included. The reason for that is that we have a very elaborate framework for financial services, as Mrs Villiers knows better than almost anyone else. The financial services action plan, with its 42 measures, is now well on its way to completion. We did not want to muddy the water or go over the same ground again, and that is why, as with some other fields that are regulated by other legal instruments, we thought it better to exclude financial services.
With regard to the Stability and Growth Pact, and the fact that the Commission has decided to challenge the decision of the Council in the Court of Justice, Mr Mombaur said that the Commission must insist on budgetary discipline. The Commission certainly does that: that is why we are going to court. I am pleased that on the whole – if not across the board – Parliament supports the Commission in that endeavour. The Commission believes that we live in a community of law. The Stability Pact is an agreement between parties and an agreement between parties is the law between parties, and that law must be upheld.
I said earlier that the proceeding the Commission would like to start in the Court of Justice will concern procedural aspects. We do not think it is the proper role of the European Court of Justice to tell the Union how to formulate economic policy. Therefore, the Court will focus on procedural aspects – the areas where it believes that the Ecofin Council has gone astray.
Having said that, I should like to point out that procedure and substance form a whole. It is for the Court of Justice to decide where the Member States – or the Council – have gone astray. I hope that will happen soon. We do not want this procedure to drag on for years. We hope that a fast-track procedure can be followed so that we will receive the opinion of the Court in the autumn.
Mrs Villiers repeated her well-known song in pointing out that she is against the euro or, at any rate, that Britain should not join EMU. I will not enter into a debate on that now. I know that fools rush in where angels fear to tread, so I will not get mixed up in the UK debate on the euro. She also said that 'inevitably' – that is the word she used – these problems arise when there are 12 countries without one over-arching economic policy that is followed by all 12. I beg to differ. Twelve countries have signed up to the Stability and Growth Pact. If, and as long as, they do what they signed up to, there is no problem about 12 countries following different economic policies. As long as their budget deficits are below the famous barrier of 3%, I do not see what more we need. No doubt the Commission will come up with more proposals along those lines. That is my answer to Mrs Villiers on the point of the link between sovereignty in economic affairs and deficits in fiscal policy."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples