Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2014-02-06-Speech-4-083-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20140206.7.4-083-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I generally try to be optimistic about these matters. One day, I believe, even Mr Cohn-Bendit will say something sensible. However, just a year ago I was sceptical about whether the Council could reach any agreement on these issues in the last stage of Banking Union.
Let us be realistic: we are talking about a very significant shift in sovereignty within the eurozone and we are talking about very large amounts of money. We have the makings of a deal that would provide much-needed certainty to the eurozone banks. Surely that is in everyone’s interests. Although it does not involve my country, I believe it is in our interests that such certainty should be provided. It is also in everyone’s interest to end the practice whereby banks make the profits yet taxpayers bear the losses if they go wrong. I do not disagree with many of the views on that.
My group is not opposed to much of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) text. However, we do have some serious concerns with Parliament’s position. Firstly, I believe we have to ensure that those countries outside the eurozone, such as the Czech Republic and Sweden, which have many eurozone-bank subsidiaries, are fully involved in the decisions that will affect their interests. Secondly, I believe we have to protect the EU budget from being called upon to shore up banks in a currency that many Member States have no intention of joining. Those are our red lines, and Parliament’s proposals as they stand do not currently guarantee them.
I do, however, agree with the need for clarity on who will make the decisions when a eurozone bank fails, and I appreciate the concern that a few large countries could call the shots in the operation of such a mechanism. But we must also be careful not to go the other way and put in place a structure so rigid that it would fail to respond appropriately to the many different ways that a bank can fail at any time or in any place. So there is a need to improve Parliament’s and the Council’s positions before we can find a settlement that suits both northern and southern countries and non-euro and euro countries.
Unfortunately, for some people, today’s debate and vote are not about trying to move forward or to find a solution: they are about institutional power play and posturing. Even Mr Verhofstadt said that, for a change, we should copy the United States of America. Perhaps we should try that in a few other policy areas as well.
My Group is not completely satisfied with either the Council’s or Parliament’s position. We believe we need to respect the rules of the single market, we believe we need to respect the state aid rules. However, we have tried to approach these issues looking at the bigger picture, which ought to transcend the petty institutional wrangling that some people want to take part in. Under the Lisbon Treaty, this Parliament has significant powers: let us try to exercise those powers responsibly."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples