Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-07-11-Speech-3-261"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070711.25.3-261"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President of the European Central Bank, Madam President of the committee, rapporteurs, ladies and gentlemen
The strength of the euro is another subject that gives rise to debate. However, we do not see the ministers of Eurogroup, under the present circumstances – today, even – claim that a strong euro is liable to jeopardise economic growth in the eurozone. Rather, we believe that the Member States that are uneasy about this strength of the European currency in relation to the outside – strength that reflects the robustness of Europe’s economic recovery – should ensure, within their countries, by introducing the necessary structural reforms, that their national economic systems, that is to say, their systems under the eurozone, become more competitive.
I was sensitive to the remarks made by your rapporteur in his report on the derailing of certain elements of wage policy. A large number of company managers are being granted allowances that in no way correspond to the appeals made again and again, both by the Bank and by Eurogroup, for a wage moderation policy that is understood properly, that is, for wage moderation that keeps up with the pace of the increase in productivity. We ought not to be surprised that European workers can no longer get to grips with a Europe in which some people earn a fortune without working, when one sees the volume of work that that requires, and the others have to resign themselves to accepting this, to being subjected to the appeals that we launch to them to encourage them to support wage moderation.
It is economic and social injustice that is now taking hold. We must react to it.
I agree with your rapporteur that, when viewed from the outside, the economic zone must be represented as being more solid, more of a single entity, but I cannot say that I understood the full scope of his ambition, when he advocates a single representation of the eurozone internationally.
In spite of his qualities, Mr Trichet will not succeed in making me withdraw from the European scene. I am here, and here to stay. And, as far as I am concerned, I have no ambition, no vague desire, that is driving me to force the other Jean-Claude to step down. Which one of us, moreover, could have the idea of eliminating the Commission from the external representation of the eurozone? The eurozone may be represented externally by one party, even if there are three of us, provided that there is an agreement among the three partners representing the eurozone externally. That agreement exists. It will have escaped no one that, on the key points of monetary policy, be it internal or external policy, we share exactly the same ideas and convictions.
I have restricted my remarks to the key points, Mr President, because that is what is asked of us by your Rules of Procedure, which I find particularly strict when the aim is to talk more vividly about the crucial and, as Parliament often says, everyday, problems of Europeans.
We, in Europe, have replaced the fundamental debate with simple words. We are invited to Parliament – I hardly ever see it – to the plenary, as it is called, and we talk, I note, of the everyday living conditions of Europeans, something that undoubtedly enhances the credibility of our institutions.
European newspapers, especially this week’s, report the words that were supposedly exchanged, during a recent Eurogroup, with an evening visitor whom we had the pleasure of hosting. I have read a summary of these long debates in editorials that take up scarcely 25 lines, and we complain that Europeans are poorly informed of what is really going on in Europe! So be it.
On the other hand, I am pleased to note that, one or two nuances aside, there is very little difference between the substance of the report by our friend, Mr Rosati, and our, the Eurogroup’s, joint consideration, since our joint finding is that growth in Europe is on the up again, is expanding, is continuing, and everything rests on our knowing whether, in a few months’ time, we will be able to see whether or not this prolonged recovery, this renewed growth in Europe, will enable us to say that the growth potential of the European Union, and of the eurozone in particular, has substantially increased. We are agreed in our finding that the levels of underemployment, of unemployment, are going down. We have had the lowest unemployment level for a very long time now. There is no doubt about that. The fact remains, however, that it must be stressed that the European Union, which is meant to be a model for the world but which still has an employment rate that is structurally higher than 7%, has no reason to seek plaudits from others or to proclaim itself victorious over the phenomenon of unemployment on our continent.
The deficits are decreasing. We saw a distinct upturn in the situation of Europe’s public finances during the period 2005-2006. That is true above all where the deficit is concerned. Its level of 2.5 in 2005 decreased to 1.6 in 2006, which clearly proves that the corrective arm of the reformed Stability and Growth Pact has proven itself, and this, despite all the generally poor warnings that were given to us when we amended the Pact.
It is true that, where the preventive arm of the Pact is concerned, we struggle to produce the same successes that we have been able to produce with the recovery of public finances in its corrective part. We, the members of the Eurogroup – there are 13 of us now and there will be 15 of us as from 1 January – remain committed to the effectiveness of the policies that must be implemented in order to make the preventive arm of the Pact really develop, really take off.
When the economy is going well, when growth rates provide so many grounds for satisfaction, when economic growth gets back on track, it is clear that those times – which, in Franglais, we call good times – must be turned to good account, so that the structural deficits in our public finances can be brought down. Hence the huge importance that we accord to achieving the medium-term objective quickly, something that requires Member States of the eurozone to redouble their efforts in order to achieve their medium-term objective in time.
It will not have escaped you that, on this point, the informal Eurogroup that was held in Berlin on 20 April took a decision that involves a commitment being made, since we said that all the Member States should meet the medium-term objective in 2008 and 2009. Some of them managed to delay this until 2010, without having their cases clarified. There was never a question of not meeting the objective until 2012. This was, of course, the main topic of discussion when, recently, at the start of the week, we met the French President, who came – and we ought to welcome this – to explain to us, at Eurogroup, the new headings and the new aims of France’s economic and budgetary policy. We approve heartily of the set of reforms under way, because they are structural reforms sought by the French Government and by the French President, but we would emphasise that which we expect and demand from France: like the other Member States of the eurozone, it must meet the medium-term objective that we have set ourselves on 1 January 2010. This is a remark that applies to France; it may easily apply to countries farther south and, in an ecumenical way, to all the Member States of the eurozone. However, we have been given reassurances regarding a reduction in the deficit in 2008, as compared with 2007, regarding the principle, which has been accepted by the French authorities, of allocating all the profits from revenue made in relation to budget estimates, in so far as the revenue is short-term revenue, and regarding the reduction in the deficit and the debt.
We all believe, since this is a subject that is brought up by the press, both in France and across the border into Germany – we are, after all, in Strasbourg – that no countries tried, in any working language of the European Union, last Monday, in the setting of Eurogroup, to call into question the independence of the European Central Bank. Moreover, if someone were to take the liberty of doing so, it would not be enough for them to be expressive in voicing a misguided thought, for respect must still be shown for the Treaties. We wanted an independent Central Bank; we have an independent Central Bank. It will, of course, remain an independent central monetary authority."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples