Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-10-25-Speech-1-116"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041025.15.1-116"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to make a few comments in response to the speeches made during the debate and point out that I entirely agree with many of the arguments and opinions expressed.
In addition to the Commission's initiatives, however, a consensus must be created at Council level both in terms of coordination, which is the responsibility of the Ecofin Council when it comes to measures of a fiscal nature, and in terms of any measures which may be adopted at the level of the production sectors, which were discussed during the first debate on the 18th. There was no full agreement amongst the Member States.
Finally, we are all aware that we are going to have to continue discussing this issue over the coming months, but I will repeat what I said at the beginning. We must do so in the knowledge that, structurally, the oil market is never going to be what it was ten, twenty or twenty-five years ago, amongst other things because there are new energy consuming countries with extraordinary economic potential and with a very high level of growth, but the direction taken by European energy policy is the right one and we must not change that direction but rather enhance it.
Firstly, with regard to the assessment of what is happening and of what is going to happen in relation to the evolution of oil prices and its impact on the European economy in general.
I believe we must insist once again on the need to be realistic when assessing this impact, and in the case of this crisis, of this rise in the oil price, which is very significant in terms of dollars, the impact on European economies is much less significant than in previous crises. We must not, therefore, exaggerate the general impact on the economy, despite the particularly noticeable and socially painful consequences for certain specific sectors.
Secondly, I believe we must be prudent when assessing the possible evolution of the oil price, by making judgments on what that evolution may be. It is true that some economists are talking about 60 and 70 dollars, but it is also true that the futures markets are operating on the basis of a reduction of the current level of 50 dollars per barrel and that the market operators are, therefore, not anticipating further rises in the petrol price, but rather a tendency over the next two years for the market situation to moderate, given that, as some of you have said, the proportion of the rise in the oil price over recent months does not correspond either to the objective situation of supply and demand in the market nor to the other geopolitical factors influencing the situation, but to speculative operations which cannot be maintained permanently over time.
We therefore need to be prudent and realistic when assessing a situation which, in any event, is not a positive one and which, as I said at the beginning, and as many of you have repeated, has a negative impact on growth and on the evolution of prices.
Thirdly, I entirely agree with those of you who have insisted on the need to continue moving ahead in relation to our energy efficiency and on policies to reduce our dependence on oil as an energy source. I believe that the European Union has made significant advances in this respect over the last 20 or 25 years and that we must continue to make progress in this direction and intensify where necessary – and I believe it is clearly necessary in relation to certain aspects – common actions at European level in relation to energy policy.
By way of example, while I said earlier that, if the price of a barrel of oil remains at 50 dollars over the next two years, until the end of 2006, this would have an impact on the European Union’s economy of a reduction in growth of around one point, the impact on the United States’ economy would be much greater, because their level of dependence on oil as a primary energy source is much greater than that of the European Union countries. And of course, given that the impact of oil prices is negative, but is not spread equally across the different sectors of our society or the different production sectors, as many of you have pointed out, it is clear that we need to redistribute our efforts in order to deal with the situation of the sectors suffering most from the rise. And the majority of you who have referred to this unequal distribution of efforts have referred, quite rightly, to the fisheries sector, firstly, and also to agriculture.
According to which rules and within which framework should we deal with this distribution of efforts or this particularly intense compensation in the sectors most suffering as a result of the rise in oil prices? I would like to repeat three criteria.
Firstly, attention must obviously be paid to the principle of coordination – it benefits nobody to take unilateral measures at national level on issues which should be decided at European level, whether by the Ecofin Council or by the Agriculture Council. On the 18th, the Agriculture Council began to analyse this issue and in the first debate the positions of the different Member States were not unanimous. It is, therefore, true that the Commission must draw up initiatives and the new Commission – which I hope is confirmed next Wednesday – as the honourable Members are aware, will not just have a new Commissioner for Agriculture, but also a Commissioner specifically dedicated to fisheries, Mr Borg, and a new Commissioner for Energy, as the honourable Member said."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples