Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-16-Speech-4-184"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060216.20.4-184"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to ask a number of questions about this report. Many of them have already been addressed, however, so I restrict myself to talking about two of them.
I wish to remind the Chamber that on 12 April 2005, Parliament adopted an important resolution, which set out the EU’s role in implementing the Millennium Development Goals. This commitment for the EU to eliminate poverty has been repeated on countless occasions, which, quite apart from being consistent, provides real substance to policies specifically geared towards global development.
It is from this perspective that we should be analysing the own-initiative report by Mr Hamon, which is commendable for the information it provides and for the solutions it proposes for the much needed strategic reform of the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
The international community’s concerns and commitments as regards the development goals should also be attributable to the IMF, at least on an instrumental level. The Fund must also undergo a thorough-going transformation of its action towards the indebted countries if it is to make full use of its capacity to meet these objectives.
Whatever opinions may have been formed of the IMF since it was set up in 1944, what is indisputable is that it is facing a crisis of legitimacy, firstly relating to the nature and scope of its recommendations and the structural adjustment policies, and secondly relating to the allocation of voting rights and the marginal representation of the emerging countries and developing countries.
This brings me to the second question, which is that of the European dimension. On this issue I have high hopes. Although I appreciate the difficulties mentioned here of setting up a single representation and a single place immediately, I am very much in favour of a single representation and a single place. This is a political problem mentioned to me in a critical tone by an MEP who had the floor before me. It is actually a matter of choice and a political problem that lies within the EU itself.
It is the EU that needs first to pave the way for conciliation and coordination if it is to deserve this position of single representation in the IMF.
One thing I know without fear of contradiction: a single, coherent, audible European voice in the IMF is an essential prerequisite for a genuine cooperation policy.
This is also the thrust of Mr Hamon’s message, and he has my full support."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples