Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-01-19-Speech-3-031-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110119.4.3-031-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr Van Rompuy, ladies and gentlemen, I see two major problems with the proposed amendment to Article 136, one of them institutional and the other political.
The institutional one is that Article 3 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states that monetary policy for the countries whose currency is the euro is the exclusive competence of the Union, but Article 2 provides that exclusive competence may be exercised by the Member States if authorised by the Union. It is difficult to understand why the application of a rule clearly set out in the Treaty should require reform of the Treaty.
Then there is also a political problem: choosing the Treaty reform option, rather than using Article 2 or Articles 352 plus 136, places the European Stability Mechanism, and hence the future of the euro, at the mercy of 27 ratification processes.
Do people realise that if just one of these 27 ratification processes proved unsuccessful, it would then be difficult to find a plan B for the euro? Does the European Council realise that choosing this path puts the future of the euro at great risk?"@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples