Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-10-21-Speech-2-078"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081021.7.2-078"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs |
vice-chair; Delegation for relations with the countries of Central America (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3,3
|
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I am going to indicate the points on which I agree and disagree with the Presidency and also say what was lacking, in my opinion, from the Presidency’s speech.
Thirdly, and very importantly, I have one very specific request. The financial economy must be set against the real economy. Do not bid farewell to the presidency, Mr President, without first entrusting the Commission with the specific task of establishing a Lisbon+ agenda which must come into force on 1 January 2011 and which must involve a revision of the financial frameworks.
I have a final quotation. On this ideological theme, a Spanish philosopher – Unamuno – once said that he was anticlerical in defence of the Church. I am against total deregulation of the market. I believe that, in this regard, the Presidency and I are in agreement.
I agree that the origin of the crisis is not limited to the subprime crisis in the United States. I agree with the principle of what Alan Greenspan is now calling the stage of ‘irrational exuberance’. I agree that the markets have failed because regulation has failed and that governments have had to come to the rescue. I agree that this is a global crisis and I therefore agree with the need for a Bretton Woods that some are calling Mark II and others are calling Mark III. Certainly, President Sarkozy’s reference to the current system reminds me very much of what General de Gaulle did before the first Bretton Woods failed, before the ‘rendition’ of Fort Knox when President Nixon decided to unpeg the dollar from gold.
For this reason, we need to establish a European diplomacy, a diplomacy of the euro, where Europe speaks with one voice and has to ‘put its house in order’. However, ‘putting its house in order’ means continuing to develop the financial markets – in this case the retail markets so that they reach the appropriate size – and reflect on the regulatory framework.
As for the European Central Bank, I agree that it has done well. It has acted quickly, but also erratically. It has changed the rules on maturities and guarantees three times, whereas the banks need certainty in their financing.
Secondly, monetary policy – the lender of last resort – is still centralised. However, banking supervision is still decentralised.
Mr President, has the time not come to decide whether we want to develop Article 105 of the Treaty, which gives greater supervisory powers to the European Central Bank?
I totally agree on the issue of economic governance. While we are engaged in this ideological dance, we should remember that Marx said that, when economic structures change, the political superstructures must also change.
We did Maastricht but we have not sorted out the institutional architecture.
Before Lisbon, we must determine which formulas will allow us to advance on this issue."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples