Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-09-24-Speech-3-240"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080924.31.3-240"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spokenAs | |
lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, listening to the Commissioner's statement just now, it felt as if I was in the wrong film. He repeatedly emphasised that swift and rapid action is being taken. In reality, the only thing that has moved swiftly in recent weeks, months and years is the market, which is frequently invoked in our regular debates here. The fact is that the market regulated the problem of the investment banks very quickly on its own. We were unable to react as swiftly.
I would be delighted if we were now to make it clear to the US that the SEC – the Securities and Exchange Commission – should put its own house in order for once. Siemens is the subject of a rigorous investigation, but no one looks at the US. I expect the Commission and the Council to enable us to set out a European policy course in this area.
'Swift' is certainly not the word that we can use when we look at the Council and particularly the Commission. We are now being kindly invited by the Americans to pay a share. I do not wish to comment on that at this juncture. It is enough, at this stage, to monitor developments. However, what I expect from the Council – although when it comes to the Commission, I am not sure whether the Barroso Commission is capable of this – is to ensure, at the least, that we overcome the American and British resistance to transparency in the financial markets. I need only remind you of the German Presidency, when President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel came up with an initiative and the Barroso Commission sat back and said, 'Who is Sarkozy and who is Merkel anyway?' and took no action.
'Swift' is really not the word we can use. I need only remind you of Enron and Parmalat. At the time, the European Parliament had adopted a relevant report by Mr Katiforis – I was the shadow rapporteur – on the issue of credit rating agencies. That was back in 2003. Now, in October 2008, the Commission may well present proposals, but the IOSCO is already saying that we should not deviate from the Securities and Exchange Commission and US rules, for otherwise the international financial system will be disrupted.
Europe must go its own way here. That is why I do not really care what the SEC is proposing, and if the Commission plans to move in the same direction as the SEC, all I can say is that it should wrap up warmly. We must do what we think is right, and the Americans can then follow us. That is all I have to say about rating agencies.
It has been said that we should deal with the revision of Basel II at one reading. I hope that the Council representative is listening, as that is something that he mentioned. We can do it at one reading, as long as the Council gives up its opposition to a European supervisory regime. What the Council has achieved so far through its closer cooperation with the European supervisory authorities is lamentable. Nice was based on intergovernmental cooperation. That being the case, the Council should jump over its own shadow for once and think along European lines.
Hedge funds have also been mentioned, along with private equity. Commissioner McCreevy told the House only this week that we must not be overhasty. We can accuse Mr McCreevy of many things, but being overhasty is not one of them.
I have regularly attacked Mr McCreevy in the House on the issue of hedge funds and private equity. We must ensure that the Commission now presents proper analyses and does not remain in a state of denial. This is no longer Mr McCreevy's problem; it is now Mr Barroso's problem."@en1
|
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples