Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-11-24-Speech-3-075"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101124.6.3-075"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I will answer two concrete questions and also make a general remark after the debate that took place this morning.
I want to make that point very clearly because I think it was not made during this debate today. Some of you said the problems are in the euro area. I am sorry to say they are not only in the euro area. The euro has not been the problem. I am absolutely convinced that the situation would be much worse if we did not have the euro.
Some of you tend to forget that some countries that are not in the euro area have exactly the same problems, in some cases even worse problems of sovereign debt, and that a country that is not even in the European Union and that is now asking to join the European Union – Iceland – went bankrupt, and they do not have the euro. The reality is that the euro was not the cause of the problem. It is intellectually and politically dishonest to suggest that the problem is with the euro.
What we have to do now is recognise the specificities of the situation in the euro area, to address the problems and ask all the Member States to give a commitment to work collectively: those who are in the euro area and those who are not. I think they have all understood that there is a common interest in a common approach to resolve this crisis. That is what the Commission will do, in a responsible way, pushing of course for the highest level of ambition, but in the end working in good, loyal cooperation with all the institutions, with this Parliament, as we have done, and with the Council and European Council. That is the responsible method that we have to follow.
In a period where markets are extremely nervous, we should keep cool heads and we should keep a strong sense of responsibility, also of course with a strong sense of common European purpose.
First of all, a question raised by Mr Schulz: an important one about the Irish stress tests. Let me say the following. The common methodology of the stress tests was agreed at European level; it was very rigorous, with adverse macro-economic scenarios. However, the implementation of the tests was carried out under the responsibility of the national supervisory authorities. It was coordinated at European Union level by the CEBS, but there were no European Union competences for that. I want to underline that, until recently, the European Union as such did not have this kind of responsibility. This is going to change next January. We will have the new architecture of financial regulation and supervision in place by then, following Commission proposals and agreement with the Council and in Parliament.
We will have the three European micro-prudential supervisors for banking, securities and insurance, and the European Systemic Risk Board for macro-financial stability and the risks associated with it. And that will provide much stronger tools and infrastructure to carry out the tests next time in a more unified, rigorous and coherent manner. So I want to underline this point. Before the crisis we did not have the instruments that we are creating now.
Then I come to the second issue concerning the way we are now dealing with some sensitive issues like the permanent crisis mechanism. I want to make it clear that it was not my intention to raise the point but, since there was a concrete question, I have to reply.
Unanimously – and I repeat unanimously – the Heads of State or Government decided to ask for a permanent crisis mechanism with the intervention of the private sector. I was one of those who warned the European Council about the risks of raising this issue without proper preparation and communication. But the issue was raised and decided and now we have to deal with it in the most responsible way. That is why I believe some of the comments made here today were really not helpful.
We are still living in very difficult conditions. I think what we need now is action and not more comments. We are dealing with very sensitive global financial markets. Some of the comments sometimes have a self-fulfilling prophecy effect. So it is not helpful to start speculating about countries that may be at risk. What we have to ask those countries is to implement all the measures that are necessary for achieving financial and budgetary stability.
That is why I am not going to speculate about Plan B. We, together with President Van Rompuy, are doing our work, discussing the issues with responsibility with our Member States. Regarding the role of the Commission, I want to be extremely clear once again. The Commission – and this was acknowledged by most of you – has always been putting forward ambitious proposals. We are for ambitious economic governance for Europe.
But in the end, we have to be realistic. Together we cannot go beyond what is established by common agreement with our Member States. When there is an agreement – an agreement that anyhow represents progress compared to the previous situation – it is not helpful to speak about ideal solutions that you very well know will not come into effect.
So the Commission is fulfilling its role, and will fulfil its role, asking for more ambition in terms of common purpose, economic governance, stability of the euro area – and not only of the euro area."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples