Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-07-04-Speech-1-085"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050704.17.1-085"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I would like firstly to congratulate the two rapporteurs, Mr Lauk and Mr Maaten, on the excellent work they have done on their respective reports. I believe that this Parliament’s decision to discuss them jointly this afternoon is a wise one, because it is clear that the present and the future of the euro are very closely linked to the activities and correct decisions of the European Central Bank.
As President Trichet has just said and as the report says, we must strengthen the dialogue of the European Central Bank, whose independence must be respected, with the Commission and the Council and, in particular, with the Eurogroup. I have the privilege of observing the important dialogue held each month within the Eurogroup between the President of the European Central Bank and the Finance Ministers of the euro zone.
We must deal with a very important issue with which I would like to end this speech
the enlargement of the euro zone to the new Member States, which will be in a position over the next few years to join the 12 current member countries
rigorously and at the same time taking a broad view.
Over the coming months we will have to analyse rigorously, frankly and with full dialogue with the countries in question, whether Estonia, Lithuania or Slovenia — which were the first three enlargement countries to join the exchange rate mechanism in 2004 — next year comply with each and every condition laid down in the Treaty in order to join the euro zone, as their authorities wish.
In this respect, with regard to information on the euro, I would like to inform this Parliament that, over recent months, I have begun a programme of visits, that will continue over the months between now and the end of the year, to all the new Member States to discuss in detail with their authorities, both with their governments and with the Presidents of their respective Central Banks, their degree of preparedness for joining the euro zone when the time comes. We have learnt a lot since the nineties: we can and we must communicate this experience to the authorities of the countries which will eventually join the euro zone and we can use these successive enlargements of the euro zone to explain to all of the European citizens, of the new and of the old member countries, the great advantages of the euro, and dispel some of the false ideas expressed about our single currency.
Both the euro and the Central Bank have been under attack over recent weeks. The criticisms made within the public debate have been logical and positive. If these attacks are based on a lack of arguments or on demagoguery, we must respond to them. I believe that this debate offers a good opportunity to respond to some of the unfounded criticisms levelled at the single currency and the European Central Bank over recent weeks.
I would like to begin, like Mr Maaten’s report, by insisting on the advantages of the euro, on the positive aspects of the single currency since it was launched: it has given us stability in the face of possible monetary turbulence and crises, such as those we have experienced in the past; it has given us price stability, largely thanks to the correct monetary policies of the European Central Bank; thanks to that stability, it has provided us with low interest rates and protects us from risks which we must not assume are behind us. The euro allows us to deal with the risks that we were subject to before, but we must not forget that those risks may appear again unless we maintain confidence in, and the credibility of, our currency and our Economic and Monetary Union.
It has been said that, during the two referenda held in France and in the Netherlands, some of the criticisms of the ‘no’ camp treated Brussels as a kind of ‘scapegoat’. They intended to criticise elements of the world situation or the strategies of the respective national governments, but when making those criticisms, they pointed the finger at Brussels.
I have the impression that the same thing is happening with the euro and with monetary policy. The low growth of the European economies is not a problem caused by the single currency or by monetary policy; it is essentially a problem of the lack of structural reforms, the loss of dynamism, flexibility and the capacity of the European economies to adapt in a globalised world in which, for some time now, economic borders have not had the same meaning that they had a century ago.
If we are to propose correct economic policies to our citizens involving strategies for progress, growth, well-being and employment, therefore, we cannot indulge in nostalgia for the past or focus on the wrong adversary. The past is not going to return and the adversary is not the euro or monetary policy.
At these difficult times for the European Union, therefore, from both economic and political points of view, we must take particular responsibility for taking the correct decisions. I believe, as I have said inside and outside of this Parliament on many occasions, that the reform of the Stability and Growth Pact, which has very significant support from this Parliament, is a correct decision that is starting to be applied rigorously, as President Trichet has just called for.
Next week we will debate the proposed recommendations adopted a few days ago by the Commission in the Ecofin Council with regard to Italy; in the coming weeks we will do so in relation to Portugal and before the end of the year we will do so with regard to other countries: some of the founding countries of the European Union and also some of the new member countries of the Union.
Those rules must be applied with credibility and energy, but also rationally, in order not to provide support for the arguments of those people who want to set economic stability and budgetary discipline against economic growth and job creation on the grounds that they are incompatible; they are perfectly compatible. Following its reform, the current Stability and Growth Pact allows that compatibility to have practical consequences in terms of the decisions adopted by the Commission and the Council."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples