Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-03-09-Speech-3-184"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050309.15.3-184"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I believe that the debate on the Stability and Growth Pact has shown that there is a genuine need for action. I was struck, in particular, by the comments of the last speaker, who gave us an encouraging message.
It would be extremely serious if the European Union, on an issue like the Stability and Growth Pact, should see divisions, for instance, between old and new members. I view that as something very dangerous. We must approach reform of the Stability Pact in a spirit which is also one of solidarity. Any division would, in my view, be extremely harmful and dangerous.
I should also like to return to an idea which was mentioned, in particular, by the last speaker, namely the importance of the institutional aspect. We must not weaken the Commission or the Commission's role in managing the Stability Pact, and there is no question as far as the Presidency is concerned of somehow withdrawing the Commission from its role in the area of budgetary surveillance. Thus, this aspect appears particularly important.
The Presidency’s proposals, on which agreement has still to be reached, clearly tend to introduce greater flexibility, because in some quarters greater flexibility is required. However, at the same time, they aim to create a more precise framework specifically to enable the deficit to be assessed. One deficit is not the same as another. I believe we are all sufficiently familiar with economic rules and laws to know that no two deficits are necessarily identical in nature. A deficit caused by consumer spending should not be considered as being identical to one resulting from productive investment, from investment in the future. I therefore believe that this is the framework which the Presidency would like to create, to enable a more precise assessment to be made, avoiding any risk of arbitrariness.
Next, I believe the pact has to be more closely related to economic cycles, and that it should still be possible to modify any instrument of economic policy in the light of experience. The rules adopted should be able to withstand the test of reality. When they are tested against reality, we may have to conclude, where necessary, that the rules are perhaps not always totally appropriate. Adapting the pact does not mean that deficits will be allowed to increase in the future. Those who think that deficits could be allowed to run unchecked without consequences are wrong, because deficits spiralling out of control would very quickly be punished by rising interest rates, which would have an impact on the investment urgently needed in Europe. We have also discussed the Lisbon strategy at length this morning – a strategy based, inter alia, on investment. It is clear, therefore, that we cannot recommend, on the one hand, a strategy based on investment and, on the other, encourage practices which would lead to an increase in interest rates, providing a disincentive to that very same investment.
I believe that what we want is to have rules which are complied with – rules which can be respected by everyone; and so that everyone can comply with them, certain economic and political realities need to be taken into account. Without wishing to refer to any one country in particular, although one has already been mentioned, we have to acknowledge that some countries have experienced fairly exceptional events, and it would not be acceptable for such exceptional factors not to be taken into account, to some degree.
Turning to sustainable development, I can say to Mrs Isler-Béguin that we have firmly insisted on maintaining the environmental dimension in the Lisbon strategy – not only on maintaining it but also genuinely incorporating it in all policies right across the board. Sustainable development cannot just be bolted on. It is something which must inspire the whole range of policies, and all policies must be assessed against a yardstick of sustainable development. Therefore, I do not believe that the Presidency is trying to neglect Gothenburg or consign it to oblivion. We continue to regard the strategy of sustainable development as fully valid. We recommend a horizontal approach to all environmental policy, as already set out in the Treaty and in the draft Constitution. On this point, we believe that a charter could be useful because it would give us a certain number of guiding principles to be followed when implementing the various policies.
Finally, with regard to Kyoto, the Presidency is extremely keen to develop the Kyoto follow-up, and if there is sustainable development dimension, I believe it is based, in particular, on this aspect, namely preparing for the follow-up to Kyoto. On this point, the Presidency would like the European Union to take a lead, to be at the leading edge of progress and to have a key role in the defence of the planet."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples