Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-07-06-Speech-2-368"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100706.27.2-368"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I will try to respond to some of the concrete questions. First of all, to Corien Wortmann-Kool, thank you for your support. In fact, we believe this will enhance the credibility of our Stability and Growth Pact, but also of the euro and of the European project as a whole, and we believe that Parliament should be closely associated with all these efforts.
So, as you see, we are acting on several fronts. Today, I have presented to you the proposals made more recently in terms of economic governance, but we should not separate those proposals from the other efforts that we are pursuing to give more coherence to our economic policy, to understand that a monetary union without some kind of economic coordination does not make sense. I believe that the stability of the euro is in the interest of all our citizens. It is in the interest, certainly, of the euro area, but it is also in the interest of all the European Union and of all those who want open markets, open economies and open societies.
At the last European Council, when President Buzek was there, I made a point that Parliament should be kept fully informed of progress in the discussions on the future economic governance of Europe.
I think that some of the concerns expressed by Mr Hughes and Mr Bisky should be considered, but in fact, I believe that our proposal does consider your concerns because in this proposal, we are saying something new: that the Stability and Growth Pact is not everything, that we are linking analysis of the implementation of the measures in the framework of the Stability and Growth Pact with macro-economic imbalances, with the problems of divergences in competitiveness. So, in fact, what we are proposing is a holistic approach that does not look only to the macro-economic aspects but also to growth, as Guy Verhofstadt was suggesting, that looks also to innovation, to the reforms. That is precisely our goal with Youth 2020. And yes, Mr Verhofstadt, as you rightly mention, we are concerned now with the internal market and we are working on this taking the report presented by Mario Monti – a report I have asked him to present – as a basis and Commissioner Barnier will come in the Fall with some very important proposals, a Single Market Act in fact to address this issue.
So our proposal is not only about prudence in macro-economic aspects. Today we are discussing economic governance, so it is natural that we look at what did not go well, but I want to underline this point – this is not just about macro-economic prudence: it is also about growth and about our reform agenda. What is new here is that now, for the first time – if, of course, this plan can in the end be agreed – we have this comprehensive approach, trying to look at all the aspects. You will remember that, when I presented the Europe 2020 strategy some months ago, in some quarters in Europe some people were saying ‘No, you cannot link it to the Stability and Growth Pact because it may weaken the Stability and Growth Pact’. I think that everybody agrees now that discussing the macro-economic constraints without discussing structural reform, and without considering competitiveness, makes no sense.
That is why I also do not agree with the idea that our approach is not balanced. In Youth 2020, we were fighting for targets such as reduction of poverty, education, and employment to be included. So it is, in fact, a very balanced approach, one in which we try to combine all the economic policy instruments, to have a European dimension and a national dimension and to have, at the same time, objectives related to competitiveness and objectives related to social inclusion and to education.
You are right, Mr Verhofstadt; it is up to the Commission to make the proposals, and that is what we are doing. We will come with formal proposals. What is going on is a very important reform. That is why Olli Rehn is also giving his very important input on behalf of the Commission to the task force. We believe it is important to bring some consensus, because these are very important changes, but of course, when the time comes to present the legislative proposals to the Commission, we will do so, and that is exactly the best way to have your Parliament associated.
But we also want to include in this holistic approach macro-economic surveillance with TIF. It is not only about sanctions for those who do not fulfil the criteria of depth and the deficit. We will also try to reinforce coordination in terms of the macro-economic imbalances.
Some of you also mentioned supervision, and, once again, I would like to remind you that our aim remains to have the new authority in place at the start of 2011. We need this since our whole reform is based on this new architecture. In the last few days, a new Belgian Presidency has renewed momentum towards a deal. There is a predominant sense of constructive pragmatism on both sides. I am grateful for the ambition Parliament has been demonstrating. I am grateful for your strong support. At the same time, I would like to ask you to continue your efforts to reach a satisfactory deal in the next few days. I believe it now appears within grasp. The Commission has contributed through various compromise texts and is very pleased that progress is being made. We now call on both colegislators to maintain the positive dynamic. As Mrs Swinburne said, and she is right, the Americans have announced the political agreement but they have not yet legislated. Sometimes when you read the press, it appears that the Americans are much more advanced than we are. It is not true. President Obama said in the G20 that he got a bipartisan agreement. Great, and we welcome that. But in reality, we should be able to conclude our legislative work long before our American partners and I believe we should do that to show also our leadership in terms of the financial regulation and supervision at the global level. That could only enhance the role of Europe in this matter.
Finally, some of you spoke about stress testing. As you know, the Commission is playing an important role in promoting transparency and communicating the results of the ongoing stress testing of banks. At the last European Council, I made a strong plea to make the results public. As you know, this is a national competence, but I am indeed extremely pleased with the European Council agreement to do so. This decision should reassure investors by either lifting unfounded suspicion or by dealing with the remaining problems that may exist. I am very confident about the overall resilience of the EU banking industry, but we must identify possible pockets of vulnerability and deal with them. A fully transparent stress test provides the opportunity to do so. Backstop mechanisms must be designed for activation in case of need and this is, once again, a national responsibility. If state intervention is needed, this will be examined by the Commission in a timely manner under the Community State aid rules. The European decision to publish individual results of bank stress tests was indeed very well received by the G20 leaders in Toronto last weekend and we believe this is the way to restore confidence in our overall system."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples