Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2014-02-04-Speech-2-616-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20140204.59.2-616-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, originally some finance ministers said that Parliament would just have to give in on the SRM. That, of course, is not how it works.
I am glad to acknowledge some improving tone, but significant changes in texts is what counts. We must streamline procedures so that rapid, country-blind approaches are taken, not those hamstrung by too much Council or nationally-tilted decision-making. That is why I have problems with the content, as well as the form, of the intergovernmental agreement. The country-blind approach must apply also to the use of funds.
Banks are affected by the economies that they serve, so it is true there is a Member State tie which will endure even after the asset quality review deals with legacy issues. There are two possible responses to that: create a fund that right from the start helps to break those links, fostering collective financial stability and growth, or put controls and compartments on the fund that unpicks those benefits. The latter – Council – approach puts brakes on achieving a better monetary union. It is the opposite of haste, so why do it in haste? We will negotiate loyally and speedily aiming for an agreement to get the best of both solutions, but not at any price. There is no deadline. If need be the work can be left unfinished to be picked up by the next Parliament."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples