Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-02-22-Speech-2-045"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2005-02-22"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Economy/Public finances2
dcterms:Language	"pl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20050222.4.2-045"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-02-22-Speech-2-0462
lpv:speaker	lp:Dariusz Rosati2
lpv:spokenAs	vice-chair; Temporary committee on policy challenges and budgetary means of the enlarged Union 2007-2013 (2004-10-14--2005-06-08)3 member; PES (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; AFET (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Socjaldemokracja Polska (2004-07-20--2006-07-02)3 substitute; SEDE (2004-07-21--2005-09-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Romania Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-15--2005-09-13)3 member; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 member; ECON (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the proposed changes to the Stability and Growth Pact are intended to make tax rules within the European Union more flexible and practical, whilst upholding the fundamental principle of budgetary discipline. I believe these changes are a step in the right direction, but I should like to highlight three related issues. Firstly, the Commission proposals mainly focus on current budget deficit, whilst attaching less importance to public debt. I believe that the opposite should be the case, as the most important factor determining long-term financial stability is the size of the debt in relation to gross national product, and not the deficit in any given year. This means that tighter deficit limits should be set for countries with very high levels of debt than for those with low levels of debt. The latter can afford to run a higher deficit on a short-term basis, and should not be punished for having stuck to the rules in the past. Levels of debt should therefore be a more important criterion than current deficit. Secondly, the method used to calculate deficits must make allowance for the particular situation of those of the new Member States that have embarked upon the difficult task of reforming their pension systems. In these countries, expenditure associated with these reforms has risen on a temporary basis because it is necessary both to finance current pensions and to establish pension funds for future generations. This expenditure should not be treated as current public expenditure for the purposes of the Stability and Growth Pact, as it does not increase current demand, but instead contributes to national savings. New Member States should not be punished for carrying out difficult structural reforms. Thirdly, I should like to suggest to the Commissioner that consideration be given to excluding expenditure associated with payments into the EU budget when establishing the principles according to which deficits will be calculated for the purposes of the Stability and Growth Pact. Although it is true that such expenditure increases demand throughout the EU, it also helps implement the key principle of solidarity. Such a solution could also make it easier to reach a compromise on the size of the European Union’s budget for 2007-2013. I would note that one of the reasons why certain Member States are calling for a ‘small’ budget is because they are net contributors to the EU budget. Many thanks."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph