Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-03-24-Speech-2-354"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090324.30.2-354"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the European Union can provide developing countries and other countries not in the EU with financial assistance in the form of credit at low interest rates from the European Investment Bank. The EU guarantees the loans in such a way that the lender does not incur any losses and it may finance its own borrowing further with market money.
When the EU’s guarantees in respect of the European Investment Bank were renewed and extended to cover more countries than before, it was the European Parliament’s view that the decisions should come under the codecision procedure and, furthermore, fall within the competence of the European Parliament, and not just that of the Council. The European Court of Justice agreed and, accordingly, the Council’s unilateral decision was remitted back to the codecision procedure. The new decision is to be taken by 6 November this year.
Now before us is the Commission’s proposal for a decision, which may be regarded as temporary, and regarding which the Commission will be allowed up to the end of April next year to prepare a new, general proposal. Parliament has left its fingerprints on the ‘temporary’ decision, and the Council has accepted that. It is a positive sign that, after some tricky negotiations, there is now consensus between the Council and Parliament and that the decision can be taken today at first reading, without the need for any further deliberation.
In this connection I wish to thank the representatives of the Czech Presidency, who have worked so hard in the Council to bring about consensus. But for the active participation of the Czech Republic, this decision would never have come into being.
All the same, I do have to censure all those who stirred things up at the European Investment Bank. The European Investment Bank is accustomed to receiving the support of the European Parliament in its various affairs, but its representatives this time have failed to realise that the codecision procedure had been brought into play and that Parliament’s competence in this matter had been extended significantly. Parliament wanted to exercise its powers fully, which was not possible at the earlier consultation procedures. It was, I think, completely inappropriate that the European Investment Bank, which is one of the institutions of the EU, should not have shown some respect for Parliament’s established practices, but instead tried to influence the decision from the political periphery.
It is, nevertheless, a good end result. The European Investment Bank mainly got what it wanted. It earned Parliament’s sympathy in a decision-making procedure in which Parliament formed its own opinion. This decision now has the vast consensus of the political groups behind it, whereas it would not have if the European Investment Bank’s approach had been adopted. I would like to thank the Presidency of the Council of the European Union for achieving this compromise. I would also like to thank the Committee on Budgets and its shadow rapporteurs for its consensus in order to reach a decision at first reading. I am sure this will be a good decision for all concerned."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples