Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-01-13-Speech-2-035"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090113.5.2-035"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, during these times of uncertainty, it is important to be able to count on something with a reliable value: the euro. As I was able to play a bit-part as a member of the Ecofin Council during the period of preparation for the future single currency, I could see the doubts on both sides of the argument and the pussyfooting of the Member States, which ultimately made the Eurogroup into a stronger forum for cooperation ahead of its time. Furthermore, two of Europe’s finest achievements came about through the determination of a few states to forge ahead in making integration something real for all our fellow citizens. I am referring to the Schengen Agreement entailing the free movement of Europeans, which was implemented on the initiative of five states: France, with President Mitterrand, Germany, with Chancellor Kohl, along with the Benelux countries. Switzerland has now become part of the Schengen area, but the British and Irish are still shying away from this people’s Europe.
President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl were also the political architects of the euro, even though there were many who supported this monetary success, starting with Jacques Delors. The first lesson I would like to draw from this is that anyone who wants a better Europe must not be afraid of intergovernmental action, especially if there is a coalition of states which really want to move Europe forward. The Prüm Treaty, which is intended to combat serious crime, is an example of this positive enhanced cooperation for Europe. At a time when the Constitutional Treaty is dead and buried, following the ‘no’ vote from a strange coalition of political forces not only in France but in the Netherlands too, and when the indigestible piece of legislation known as the ‘mini’ Treaty of Lisbon is being blocked in Ireland and possibly in the Czech Republic as well, we should prove that Europe is still functioning by relying on the huge area of enhanced cooperation.
In any case, the attraction of the euro remains intact. Following Slovenia, Slovakia has just joined us. Others are fretting about not being able to benefit more from the protective shield provided by the euro. Even in the UK voices are being raised, questioning the country’s splendid isolation in the face of the pound’s collapse, which has seen its status fall from that of the world’s reserve currency to a run-of-the-mill currency in less than a century. Thanks to the consistent actions of Wim Duisenberg, Jean-Claude Trichet and the likes, the euro has become the world’s second reserve currency in 10 years. Of course, the dollar remains king for global transactions, still providing a safe investment, but the colossal debts accumulated by the United States in getting the rest of the world to finance their lifestyle will increasingly sow the seeds of doubt as to the ability of the number one economic power to honour its commitments. In fact, the financial world is tending towards a euro/dollar duopoly. Any monetary duopoly regularly goes through parity adjustments which often occur suddenly. In these times of widespread recession, the world needs stability and new certainties. The euro will have a key role to play in this new stability. The European Central Bank (ECB) has done what it needed to do in the face of a global financial crisis ‘made in the USA’.
As Jacques Delors said, the euro is the shield to protect the whole of Europe, but the euro has not stimulated the European economy enough so far. The ECB is only in charge of monetary policy. At the end of the day, the Commission is only a first-class consultant making suggestions which are generally useful, but the real economic players remain the states themselves which, unfortunately, are operating in a disorganised manner. Although the effective harmonisation of the cumulative economic power of 27 states could work miracles, the Eurogroup, in spite of the commendable efforts of Jean-Claude Juncker, still only remains an informal discussion group. In the spring of 1999, I was able to witness the attempt made within the Eurogroup by a few finance ministers, including Oskar Lafontaine, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Carlo Ciampi and a few others, to establish economic and monetary cooperation between the European Union and the European Central Bank. Wim Duisenberg made the cutting retort: ‘there never will be any
coordination with the European Central Bank as you are always going to have to react
to our decisions.’ The reason for this is obvious: the ECB is and will remain independent in conducting its monetary policy, but independence does not mean a ban on constructive dialogue between institutions tasked with defending the interests and common destiny of 500 million Europeans. There is nothing to prevent states from organising themselves better with regard to achieving proper coordination of their economic policies, whether it is inside the EU or especially when representing Europe externally, as Jean-Claude Juncker so sensibly concluded just now."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples