Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-31-Speech-3-203"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060531.18.3-203"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I would like to thank all of the Members who have spoken during the debate. I would like to thank them for their contributions, regardless of whether they agree with the Commission’s views on the issues that we are discussing today.
I would like to say four things: firstly, that the Commission is, of course, in favour of enlarging the eurozone. There is no other option: the Member States have that right and obligation, and we respect that right and demand compliance with that obligation. We do so regardless of whether those who are to join the eurozone over the coming years are new or old Member States – a distinction which we believe belongs in the past – or whether they be large or small, rich or not so rich.
We are not going to come up with any new conditions, Mr Rosati: we are applying the Treaty, the whole Treaty, and nothing but the Treaty. That is the only way to ensure that everybody is treated equally, and I do not imagine – and I am sure that none of you wishes to do so – that anybody in this House would ask the Commission not to fulfil its duty as guardian of the Treaty and not to apply the Treaty equally to each and every Member State.
Can the Treaty be modified? Of course. This afternoon I have had the opportunity to attend the debate at which Prime Minister Verhofstadt spoke about the future Constitution, the necessary changes and the future of Europe. Of course the Treaty can be changed, and it will be changed eventually. But for now we have to apply the existing Treaty, and you know, just as I do, that it is not for the Commission to change the Treaty.
What does the Treaty say about the inflation criterion, which has been discussed in the debate? It says that the reference value consists of the average inflation of the three best performing Member States in terms of inflation. It does not say ‘members of the eurozone’. It clearly says ‘Member States’: all of them, including those with an opt-out clause; we cannot exclude any Member State from the calculation of the three best performing Member States in terms of inflation. And we must add 1.5% to that average of the three: that is the reference value.
Something quite different is the figure defined by the European Central Bank, independently, as an objective within the context of its mandate, which is to ensure price stability. It is not the same, and there is no reason why it should be, and in this debate we must not confuse the European Central Bank’s inflation objective with the reference value of the Treaty's inflation criterion. They are completely different things.
The Treaty's inflation criterion says something else though: it also says that the inflation of the Member State in question must be sustainable. Some of you talk about a small difference, and it is true. In the inflation criterion, however, in addition to the difference, in addition to the comparison between the inflation of the Member State and the reference value, the Treaty states that we must analyse whether or not the inflation of the Member State in question is sustainable. We cannot ignore the Treaty, and we are not going to. We are going to explain it over and over again, because rigorously analysing the criteria is not in the interest of the Sates currently in the eurozone, but of the Member State that is a candidate to join the eurozone; because, if we do not do so, that State will have to suffer the consequences once the decision to join the euro is irreversible.
References to the past are not of any use to me, therefore. If things were not done perfectly in the past, then somebody is paying for the consequences today. Let us learn from experience, since that is what rational and reasonable politicians should do. We apply the Treaty, but we apply all aspects of it, not just the bits that are in our interest, and when applying it, we learn from our experience, within the margin for interpretation permitted by the Treaty.
With regard to Lithuania, I am not going to deny the obvious, of course: its economic results are magnificent. The efforts it has made to improve its economic situation are extraordinary. We all want Lithuania to fulfil all of the Treaty’s criteria as soon as possible. Today it has been able to fulfil all of them but one; let us hope that it overcomes that difference very soon. As soon as it does so, I will be looking forward to receiving a request from Lithuania which is its right pursuant to the Treaty so that I can issue a favourable opinion on behalf of the Commission. But please do not ask the Commission to say anything in the convergence reports that goes against a rational, clear and transparent application of the Treaty."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples