Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-10-25-Speech-4-365-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20121025.28.4-365-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Roger – Roger – Roger. I mean: please stop this! We did not quite hear ‘Thus spake Zarathustra’, but we did hear ‘Thus spake the City of London’. No – the reverse is true and important: MiFID I, MiFID II – these are abstract concepts that can be fleshed out. Many of us still remember how Commissioner McCreevy kowtowed to the corporate seats in London and explained how everything could be done through MiFID I. Now we see Mr Barnier and, hopefully, a majority here saying ‘never again!’ In the meantime something has happened. Is it EUR 2 or 3 billion that have been lost as a consequence of the opportunities afforded by under-regulation?
Certainly, MiFID is a great step forward – there is no question of that – but there are still a few holes in it. As has already been mentioned, there are still far too many opportunities in the area of OTCs to escape into barely regulated trading venues, contrary to what the G20 specified. Every actor and every financial centre should be able to be controlled appropriately – we have not managed to do this.
The commission issue was prioritised time and again by the Greens, but it is completely inexplicable to me how Social Democrats could end up with something like this. What interests are behind this? Naturally the basic problem of the incentive system remains. If we reward improper economic activities, we reap what we have indeed reaped. For all that, in the area of high-frequency trading we are on the right track – in general it is the right step – but it is still too little."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples