Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-06-20-Speech-3-051"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070620.3.3-051"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as we begin this debate, which is about procedural issues, we should firstly not forget the pleasing conclusions of the Convergence Reports published by the Commission and the European Central Bank on Cyprus and Malta. The Presidency is delighted that the Commission was able to establish that Cyprus and Malta have reached a high level of durable convergence and that, on this basis, it has been able to table proposals for the euro to be introduced in these two countries.
Although it is not a legal requirement, the Presidency would be pleased if the discussion of the Heads of State or Government could also take into account the European Parliament’s position. In any case, the Council cannot adopt its two decisions on the introduction of the euro until the European Parliament’s opinions have been provided.
In principle, the Presidency supports the proposals made by President Barroso in his letter of 13 June 2007 in response to President Pöttering’s letter. The Presidency believes – as the Council President, Mrs Angela Merkel, explained in a letter to the President of the European Parliament on 19 June – that this matter primarily concerns the Commission and the European Parliament.
At the meeting of the Economic and Financial Council on 5 June 2007, ministers endorsed the Commission’s assessment that Cyprus and Malta meet the conditions for the euro to be introduced.
The Presidency would therefore be very glad if Cyprus and Malta’s success were not overshadowed by procedural issues and if the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council could reach an amicable solution.
It is in all of our interests to avoid delaying or creating any uncertainty about the technical and legal preparations that Cyprus and Malta need to make for the introduction of the euro. I should particularly like to thank the European Parliament for its willingness to cooperate.
The Presidency has sympathy for the European Parliament’s concerns and understands why it wants to have more time to examine the Convergence Reports and the Commission’s proposals for Council decisions on the introduction of the euro.
However, the Council and the Presidency are bound by the procedure laid down in the EC Treaty. The timetable is essentially determined by the rules laid down in the Stability and Growth Pact, including the Maastricht reporting regulation.
The Council’s obligation to consult the European Parliament on proposals for the euro to be introduced in Member States is laid down in Article 122(2) of the EC Treaty. The Presidency believes that the Council has respected this provision of the EC Treaty in the cases of Cyprus and Malta.
The Council received both Commission proposals for Council decisions on 21 and 22 May 2007, each in three language versions. The remaining language versions were transmitted to the Council in the course of the subsequent two weeks. On 25 May the Council consulted the European Parliament on the two Commission proposals.
In its request for consultation, the Council referred to the fact that it would be helpful if the European Parliament could adopt its opinions on the Commission proposals at its plenary session from 18 to 21 June. These opinions could then be made available to the Council, meeting at the level of Heads of State or Government, on 21 June 2007."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples