Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-03-11-Speech-2-309"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080311.32.2-309"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, let me first make two preliminary remarks. One is that I would have liked to discuss with Mr Almunia these global imbalances and monetary intervention etc., but we will do that with Mr Trichet in another configuration.
But what I want to stress here is that if we had not had this ECB structure, this system of European banks that intervened in the present turmoil, we would be much worse off. I think that this balance exists in monetary policy – we have had this type of European-level execution of activity, but we do not have it in the supervisory aspects. This is necessary for ex ante prevention instead of only intervention measures.
My second preliminary remark is about the absence of Charlie McCreevy. I think it is unacceptable that he does not want to discuss this with us. Maybe he is dealing with his personal future, but I would say for the 2009 Commission that it would be worthwhile considering having a special Commissioner for the financial markets who will concentrate only on this, because I think this is a really major subject for Europe and for the European Commission.
Then, on the issue of the supervision – the road map you have described – I do not think we disagree on the measures, but I would have expected – and I said this very clearly in the level three committee at the annual joint meeting held in November – that these measures should also have been the elements of a clear proposal for legislative measures from the Commission. The Commission has the right of initiative, they can put proposals on the table, and we would have been able to act swiftly and consistently if we had had a concrete proposal. Because now, a lot of these measures are only voluntary: they are requests to committees which really do not have the powers, the mandates, the competences and the tools to do what we would like them to do, because they are nationally organised and do not have this European mandate. This could have been the subject of a European Commission proposal in this regard.
Why is the Commission so slow in acting? I think one of the reasons is that they want these level three committees to be merely advisory and not the central tool for European supervision. I think this is something we also have to acknowledge: that they play this important role and that we need to have, like the European Central Bank, a real, independent supervisory structure which can deal with these subjects. It should not be only the Commission – as DG Competition – dealing with it, because the Commission is too weak in this respect.
Concerning the Council, I would really hope that you see the sense of urgency and discuss further measures on the architecture of supervision."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples