Indiċi 
 Preċedenti 
 Li jmiss 
 Test sħiħ 
Proċedura : 2017/2124(INI)
Ċiklu ta' ħajja waqt sessjoni
Ċiklu relatat mad-dokument : A8-0383/2017

Testi mressqa :

A8-0383/2017

Dibattiti :

PV 05/02/2018 - 18
CRE 05/02/2018 - 18

Votazzjonijiet :

PV 06/02/2018 - 5.6
Spjegazzjoni tal-votazzjoni

Testi adottati :

P8_TA(2018)0025

Dibattiti
It-Tnejn, 5 ta' Frar 2018 - Strasburgu Edizzjoni riveduta

18. Rapport Annwali tal-Bank Ċentrali Ewropew għall-2016 (dibattitu)
Vidjow tat-taħditiet
PV
MPphoto
 

  Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno reca la relazione di Jonás Fernández, a nome della commissione per i problemi economici e monetari, sulla relazione annuale della Banca centrale europea (2017/2124(INI)) (A8-0383/2017)

Ho il piacere di dare il benvenuto al Presidente della Banca Centrale europea, Mario Draghi.

Prima di dargli la parola, vorrei che i parlamentari che non intendono restare in Aula decidano di farlo in tempi rapidi.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jonás Fernández, ponente. – Señor presidente, es un placer iniciar este debate, recibir al presidente del Banco Central Europeo, Mario Draghi, al vicepresidente de la Comisión, el señor Dombrovskis, y a todos los colegas que van a participar en esta discusión sobre la ejecución de la política monetaria por parte del BCE.

Es cierto que el BCE es una institución independiente que ejecuta, en el marco de su mandato, el cumplimiento del objetivo de alcanzar una inflación cercana al 2 %, pero es verdad que, en los últimos tiempos, estamos teniendo severos problemas para situar la inflación objetivo en esa referencia de largo plazo. Todavía hace unos días conocíamos el dato del mes pasado que recogía una rebaja adicional de la inflación, hasta el 1,3 %, y es verdad que las previsiones sitúan ese 2 % muy entrado el año 2019.

A su vez, según los datos de crecimiento, es verdad que la zona del euro está recuperando capacidad, pero tenemos por delante un exceso de potencial, un exceso de capacidad de crecimiento suficiente: el Fondo Monetario, la propia Comisión Europea recogen en sus estimaciones del output gap un espacio muy amplio para poder seguir creciendo sin tensiones inflacionistas.

Por lo tanto, esta Cámara, en ese informe, respetando —como digo— la independencia clara del BCE, yo creo que sitúa dónde debe estar el debate para orientar también esa labor durante el próximo año.

Como decía, es verdad que la zona del euro está creciendo mejor, pero la política monetaria no es suficiente: necesitamos una política fiscal acorde, que permita diversificar las posiciones de cada uno de los Gobiernos en el ciclo económico para dotar al conjunto de la zona del euro de una política fiscal consistente. Es verdad que necesitamos también reformas que activen, que mejoren la productividad en el conjunto de la Unión: reformas que sean socialmente responsables, políticas socialmente con futuro. Pero, también, el informe apunta a la necesidad de consolidar el mercado interior. Necesitamos mejorar la consolidación de la Unión de Mercados de Capitales —que está impulsando la Comisión con el apoyo de este Parlamento— y necesitamos también consolidar la Unión Bancaria. Es una agenda de reformas, algunas ya propuestas legislativas, que están encima de la mesa del Parlamento Europeo, que necesitan del concurso y del debate de todos nuestros colegas.

Por lo tanto, pedimos una política monetaria acomodaticia en el buen sentido, en la buena dirección, reformas que siguen estando pendientes. Y además, el informe recoge, por supuesto, algunos efectos laterales de esa política monetaria, por lo que exhorta al BCE a que también haga un seguimiento puntual de ellos. Me estoy refiriendo a los problemas de redistribución de la renta y de la riqueza; me estoy refiriendo a los problemas que supone para la estabilidad financiera mantener una curva de tipos planos durante mucho tiempo; me estoy refiriendo también al control y al seguimiento de potenciales burbujas que pudieran estar identificándose en algunos segmentos de los mercados financieros y de los mercados también de real estate. Y, por lo tanto, pedimos al BCE que haga un seguimiento de esos efectos laterales de su propia política monetaria.

Pero el informe apunta claramente a nuevos instrumentos de transparencia, a la necesidad de que el CSPP tenga unos criterios claros de eligibilidad para evitar problemas de discriminación entre las grandes y las pequeñas empresas. Necesitamos mejorar la aplicación del ELA, para darle credibilidad y robustez en el conjunto de la zona del euro, y necesitamos mejorar el diálogo monetario, el control que esta Cámara ejerce del trabajo del Banco Central Europeo —que es una institución, como reconoce el informe, que está vinculada también por el Acuerdo de París, que ha firmado el conjunto de la Unión Europea—.

Yo creo que es un informe completo, importante, y espero que de este debate salgan nuevas aportaciones.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Mario Draghi, President of the European Central Bank. – Mr President, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, honourable Members of the European Parliament, I am very pleased to be here to discuss with you the ECB’s activities and your draft resolution on the ECB’s Annual Report for 2016.

Today’s debate represents a good opportunity to take stock of progress made and discuss the way forward. A decade ago, the global financial crisis was starting. Today, while further efforts are needed to overcome its legacy, the euro area economy is expanding and employment is rising. Your draft resolution points out that monetary policy has played a key role in this recovery process. The ECB has indeed acted decisively, in line with its mandate. We have addressed financial fragmentation and supported the economy, enabling inflation gradually to converge towards our objective.

The draft resolution also notes that the independence of the ECB has allowed us to take resolute action within our mandate. But independence is just one of the cornerstones of our institutional framework. Accountability is its necessary counterpart. And you, as the representatives of the people of the European Union, are the heart of our accountability. Together, independence and accountability underpin our effectiveness and our legitimacy.

In my remarks today, I will focus on two particular issues that have been raised in the draft resolution. First, I will elaborate on economic developments in the euro area and the role of the ECB’s monetary policy. Second, I will discuss the state of the financial sector and the measures needed to further strengthen its resilience.

The euro area economy is expanding robustly, with growth rates stronger than previously expected and significantly above potential. According to preliminary data, euro area real GDP increased by 2.5% in 2017, compared to the 1.7% that had been foreseen in our December 2016 staff projections for the same year.

The economic expansion is broad-based. The dispersion of growth rates across countries and across sectors is at its lowest level in 20 years. Accordingly, we see positive growth in over 85% of the sectors in the euro area economy, compared with a historical average of 75%. Employment growth has recently strengthened, as well, in all the main sectors, namely industry, construction and market services. These developments bode well for economic growth, as expansions tend to be stronger and more resilient when growth is broad-based.

The number of people employed in the euro area has also increased by around 7.5 million, since hitting a low in mid-2013. Employment has now reached its highest level since the introduction of the euro. The unemployment rate continues to decline and now stands at close to a nine-year low of 8.7%, down by 3.3 percentage points from its highest level.

As more people find jobs, household incomes rise. This has helped to strengthen private consumption growth, which in turn is boosting business investment. In addition, a number of other factors have supported investment. These include higher demand for euro area exports, rising corporate profitability and an increasing use of installed productive capacity.

These positive developments have been fostered and reinforced by the pass-through of the ECB’s monetary policy measures, which have eased funding conditions for households and firms. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in particular have benefited from our policy measures. The growing inclusiveness of this economic expansion is partly due to the renewed vigour of small businesses, which are a key engine of income creation in our economy.

While our confidence that inflation will converge towards our aim of below, but close to, 2% has strengthened, we cannot yet declare victory on this front. After increasing to 2% in early 2017 due to a rise in energy prices, headline inflation has fluctuated since May last year between 1.3% and 1.5%. Measures of underlying inflation, which exclude the most volatile components, remained subdued and have yet to show convincing signs of a sustained upward trend. Also, new headwinds have arisen from the recent volatility in the exchange rate, whose implications for the medium-term outlook for price stability require close monitoring.

On the back of improved economic conditions, the financial stability situation in the euro area has also continued to evolve positively. As I will explain in more detail, for the time being we have little indication that generalised imbalances are emerging.

Overall, while we can be more confident about the path of inflation, patience and persistence with regard to monetary policy are still warranted for underlying inflation pressures to build up and inflation to converge durably towards our objective. That is why – at our last meeting – we reaffirmed the decisions taken at our October monetary policy meeting last year. Accordingly, our net asset purchase programme, running at a monthly pace of EUR 30 billion, will continue until September 2018, or beyond, if necessary, and in any case until the Governing Council sees a sustained adjustment in the path of inflation consistent with its inflation aim.

In parallel, we will reinvest the principal payments from maturing securities purchased under the asset purchase programme for an extended period of time after the end of those purchases, and in any case for as long as necessary. We expect our key interest rates to remain at their present levels for an extended period of time, and well past the horizon of our net asset purchases.

Looking forward, we remain fully committed to our price stability objective and – in line with our monetary policy strategy – we aim to stabilise inflation around levels that are below, but close to, 2% within a meaningful medium-term horizon.

As always, our monetary policy will continue to be guided by our assessment of the progress made towards our objective. Our forward guidance continues to provide a stable framework for our monetary policy stance and its outlook. In line with that guidance, monetary policy will evolve in a fully data-dependent and time-consistent manner.

Let me also say a few words about the financial sector. Your draft resolution also considers several aspects related to the euro financial sector and I would like to follow up on some of them. Let me first of all emphasise that our monetary policy and a healthier financial sector are mutually reinforcing. By supporting the economic recovery, our monetary policy measures have had a positive impact on the credit quality of banks’ loans to businesses and households, and have helped banks further to reduce their provisioning costs. Moreover, a stronger economy generates greater volumes of sustainable bank lending. Both factors have therefore strengthened the solidity of the European banking sector.

A better integrated and sounder financial sector has also been able to transmit our policy impulses more evenly across the euro area. The improved health of the banking sector, coupled with our credit easing measures, has brought about a marked improvement in the transmission process, as shown by the reduced heterogeneity of bank lending rates across countries, and by the improved borrowing conditions for SMEs. A more robust financial sector has also allowed us to pursue an accommodative policy for as long as necessary, without any build-up of significant financial stability risks.

The draft resolution points in particular to the risks stemming from possible asset bubbles. We are closely monitoring developments in some market segments, such as prime commercial real estate and housing markets in some countries, and corporate bond markets for lower-rated issuers. As we explain in our Financial Stability Review, asset price increases in euro area markets have so far not been accompanied by excessive credit growth. Although credit flows have been recovering, growth rates are still far below anything we saw before the crisis, and on the low side of the range of growth rates historically seen during recoveries. So there is no evidence of systemic credit-fuelled bubbles.

The efforts we have made in recent years to strengthen prudential regulation and supervision, above all with the establishment of the banking union, have certainly played a role in protecting financial stability. In particular, ECB banking supervision plays a key role in ensuring the safety and soundness of banks. It enhances the banks’ resilience through strengthened prudential regulation. It also fosters cross-border financial integration and provides a level playing field by harmonising supervision across the euro area.

Also, on the macro-prudential side, we see national authorities in close cooperation with the ECB being very active in further mitigating the emergence of possible systemic risks, especially in respect of residential real-estate developments.

Despite the improved cyclical environment, improved market sentiment and the substantial strengthening of its shock absorption capacity, the European banking sector continues to face structural challenges, as you also state in your resolution. Indeed, overcapacity and cost inefficiencies continue to weigh on bank profitability in certain banking markets. Moreover, the high stock of non-performing loans (NPLs) needs to be further reduced and any future build-up needs to be avoided. Non-performing loan levels have been declining for more than three years and good progress has been made on the EU Council Action Plan, although there is still a considerable way to go. Additional efforts by banks, supervisors, regulators and legislators are needed to create an environment in which non-performing loans can be effectively managed and efficiently disposed of.

Strengthening the resilience of the euro area financial sector also means adapting to a changing operating environment. The resolution mentions, for instance, the growing role of fintech companies. This means more competition for banks, including in the field of lending and payment services. At the same time, new technology presents an opportunity for banks to increase the value added and the cost-efficiency of their services.

Another factor shaping the euro area financial sector is the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union. At this stage, we do not have clarity regarding the shape of the UK’s future relationship with the EU. Well-managed preparations are thus essential for dealing with frictions in the transition from the current situation to the new eventual equilibrium, especially in the event that no transitional agreement is reached between the EU and the United Kingdom.

Banks and financial institutions are not the only ones that have to prepare for an operating environment in a state of flux. Policymakers too, at national and European level, have to make sure that the regulatory framework is fit and ready to safeguard the resilience of the financial sector in the face of new challenges.

Let me mention two examples. First, finalising the banking reform package is crucial. The package will strengthen the regulatory architecture, reduce risks in the banking sector and increase financial stability. It will introduce into Union law new internationally agreed standards, such as the leverage ratio requirement, which will restrict the build-up of excessive leverage in the banking system, and the standard on total loss-absorbing capacity, otherwise known as TLAC, which will strengthen the resolution framework. As co-legislators, you play a vital role in this process, and I would encourage you to aim for consistent implementation of the internationally agreed standards, so as to ensure a level playing field worldwide and to reduce options and national discretion as much as possible.

Second, it is important to complete the architecture of the banking union by putting in place the agreed common backstop to the Single Resolution Fund and by establishing a European deposit insurance scheme (EDIS). These are two fundamental pieces of the banking union project and their implementation should not be postponed. The backstop should ensure that sufficient funding is available at all times to guarantee orderly resolutions.

A fully-fledged EDIS is an indispensable counterpart to the single currency as everyone in the euro area should be able to have confidence that the money in their bank account enjoys the same level of protection, regardless of where the account is held within the euro area.

Let me conclude. We pay close attention to Parliament’s resolution on our annual report, and we will respond in detail to the issues you raise there when we publish our ECB Annual Report for 2017. The strong relationship between Parliament and the ECB not only demonstrates the importance of accountability, but also bears possible lessons for reflection on the future of Economic and Monetary Union, the strengthening of which should remain a priority.

A well-designed and effective policy framework requires clear institutional architecture, measurable objectives and the tools to achieve them – and it needs to be accompanied by strong accountability. This is not only essential to ensure that policies are effective. It is also crucial if the public is to understand those policies and play an active role, in particular via their representatives in Parliament.

Thank you for your attention. I am now at your disposal for questions.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – Thank you very much, Mr President. I also want to thank you for your personal cooperation with the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and with Parliament.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Valdis Dombrovskis, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Jonás Fernández, and the members of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) for their report on the ECB’s annual report. It is a pleasure to be here today to discuss this with you and President Draghi.

An ex-post debate on the ECB’s activities by the European Parliament is an expression of democratic accountability. So let me start by saying that the Commission largely shares the general thrust of the report prepared by the ECON committee. The Commission shares the report’s views that the ECB’s independence in the conduct of its monetary policy, as enshrined in the Treaty, is crucial to the objective of safeguarding price stability. Accountability and independence are intertwined, and in this report the Commission shares the views that the ECB’s responsibilities and tasks require transparency towards the public at large.

The Commission also shares the views of the ECON report that the ECB’s unconventional monetary policy actions, such as forward guidance and quantitative easing, improved the transmission of monetary policy. They also had a positive impact on the overall financing conditions in the euro area and certainly contributed to the start of the ongoing economic upswing. The implementation of the above-mentioned ECB policy measures is expected to keep on gradually improving the financial conditions and contribute to bringing inflation closer to the ECB’s objective of close to but below 2%.

We also share the ECON report’s views that a prolonged period of low or even negative interest rates could represent a challenge to the profitability of various actors in the European financial sector. That said, the low interest rates were necessary to support the recovery and had some positive impact in the short term on financing costs and capital gains for banks.

These introductory remarks sum up our main points on the report. I am looking forward to a fruitful debate today and I trust that you will confirm the constructive engagement that has developed between the Parliament and the ECB over the years. Finally, I also would like to thank President Draghi for highlighting the importance of the work of completing Economic and Monetary Union and the Banking Union, and we fully share this priority.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Siegfried Mureşan, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, I welcome this debate as part of the European Central Bank’s accountability towards the European Parliament. As you have said, President Draghi, the euro area recovery continues at a steady pace; unemployment has continued to decline and has reached the lowest level since January 2009; domestic demand has strengthened, and we have seen 18 quarters of consecutive growth. However, the positive economic outlook still has to translate into higher public and private investments and we still have to progress on reaching our inflation objective.

We are still concerned about the risks of the persisting low interest rates for the insurance and pension sectors as well as for private savings. This is an important element of the European Parliament’s report with regard to the ECB’s activity for 2016. This is why the ongoing tapering is necessary for the economy to get back on track and to be self-sustaining. Unconventional monetary policy tools have reached their limits. Monetary policy cannot and shall not be the tool to resolve all of the EU’s economic and financial shortcomings. I agree with President Draghi when he says that Member States have to increase their efforts in implementing growth-enhancing structural reforms, while at the same time maintaining sound and responsible budgets to support the economic recovery.

Finally, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Jonás Fernández, for his work on this report, and we are sending – with the debate today and with its adoption tomorrow, hopefully with a large majority – a clear signal to the ECB on the Parliament’s position on your activity in the year 2016.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Pervenche Berès, au nom du groupe S&D. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Président de la Banque centrale, Monsieur le Vice-président, cher rapporteur, c’est un moment important pour la politique monétaire, mais aussi pour la politique économique que ce rendez-vous autour du rapport annuel de la Banque centrale.

Vous l’avez dit, Monsieur le Président, cette fois-ci, au fond, le contexte économique s’améliore pour l’économie européenne, et pourtant la politique monétaire doit encore contribuer à soutenir l’activité économique.

De ce point de vue, notre rapport vous invite à contribuer à une réflexion dont on sent qu’elle est en train d’émerger parmi les experts sur la réalité de l’inflation, alors que souffle un air nouveau. En effet, votre mandat défini autour de 2 % correspond à un mode de production, à un état de la mondialisation dont on voit bien qu’il est peut-être remis en cause. Il me semble que la Banque centrale a une partition à jouer dans ce domaine.

Au-delà de ce que peut faire la politique monétaire en toute indépendance, il nous semble que les messages que vous envoyez doivent être soutenus lorsqu’il s’agit d’inciter les États membres à revoir leur politique salariale, à revoir leurs structures du secteur bancaire, et aussi ce thème qui a été finalement tant évoqué à Davos, qui est celui de la lutte contre les inégalités.

Parmi les nouveaux défis, nous voyons de plus en plus d’États et de banques se préoccuper de la question de la cybersécurité et des monnaies virtuelles. Là aussi, nous attendons des perspectives de la part de l’institution que vous présidez.

Enfin, de notre côté, en tant qu’institution, vous le savez, nous accorderons énormément d’importance aux conditions de désignation de votre futur vice-président. Nous attendons une shortlist, une liste équilibrée et qui permette de répondre à tous les critères retenus par le traité pour occuper la fonction de vice-président de votre institution.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Sander Loones, namens de ECR-Fractie. – Mijnheer Draghi, fijn u hier te zien. U weet, ik ben geen grote fan van uw laks monetair beleid. Integendeel, ik ben behoorlijk kritisch. Ik ben dan ook erg blij dat het verslag dat wij hier vandaag bespreken ook kritisch is op verschillende punten.

Hier staan we nu, drie jaar later, 2 000 miljard euro later, vanwege uw monetaire experiment, mijnheer Draghi, uw quantitative easing, een experiment dat we nooit eerder op die schaal hebben gezien in de Europese Unie. En eindelijk gaan er voor het eerst ook stemmen op om dat experiment te doen stoppen. De legitimiteit ervan wordt in vraag gesteld en men wil dus dat experiment doen stoppen in september. Dat is broodnodig en zeer belangrijk, want wanneer wij al te lang veel te lage rentes hebben, dan stapelen de schulden zich op. Publieke schulden en private schulden swingen de pan uit en dat kan niet blijven duren. Die schulden breken records en de gevolgen daarvan hebben we eerder al eens gezien in 2008, met het begin van de financiële economische crisis.

Wie vandaag goed kijkt, zal zien dat er ook minder rooskleurige cijfers zijn en elementen die we kunnen aanhalen. Uw gratis geldbeleid heeft ervoor gezorgd dat de allerrijksten zeven vette jaren hebben beleefd en dat de minder rijken, de middenklasse, de armere mensen op hun tanden hebben moeten bijten. Zij moeten vaststellen dat hun spaargeld niets meer opbrengt. Ik vraag het u, mijnheer Draghi, stop ermee, niet in september maar vandaag.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Nils Torvalds, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, we all know that the ECB plays a crucial role, and sometimes more crucial than we actually understand at a given moment. Everybody still remembers the phrase ‘whatever it takes’. If that phrase hadn’t been pronounced I think we would have been much worse off than we are today.

So we do have a lot of respect for the independent nature of the bank, but at the same time we of course need some democratic scrutiny, and I therefore appreciate that Mr Draghi is here with us today.

In the report we have here in front of us, I think we have been able to strike a fairly good balance, with a balanced tone. Mr Draghi and the ECB have done a fairly good job and they have been playing a very important role in addressing the crisis.

But it is also important to point out that actions taken by the ECB sometimes fall short of what Member States need. At the same time this is probably also a good point to say that the Member States don’t always do what they should to increase the resilience of the system.

I think we are heading towards more normal interest rates. That would be a great improvement. I therefore think that the next report by the European Central Bank will be much more interesting than the one we have been reading now, because you are going to be placed in a situation where you have to make some very tricky decisions on how to stop helicopter money. I wish you the best.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Δημήτριος Παπαδημούλης, εξ ονόματος της Ομάδας GUE/NGL. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Draghi, εμείς δεν θα σας επικρίνουμε για το πρόγραμμα ποσοτικής χαλάρωσης, αλλά διότι δεν συμβάλλετε και εσείς όσο πρέπει ώστε να προετοιμαστούν η ευρωζώνη και η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση για την επόμενη κρίση και την επόμενη ύφεση. Σας επικρίνουμε γιατί χρειάζεται να στραφούμε ταχύτερα και εντονότερα από μια δογματική μονομέρεια στη λιτότητα σε πολιτικές βιώσιμης ανάπτυξης· γιατί η λογοδοσία και η ενίσχυσή της πρέπει να εξασφαλιστούν όχι μόνο στα λόγια αλλά και στην πράξη.

Ζητούμε να δεχθεί η Ευρωπαϊκή Κεντρική Τράπεζα τις συστάσεις της Ευρωπαίας Διαμεσολαβήτριας για την ενίσχυση και της διαφάνειας και της δημοκρατικής λογοδοσίας. Να αποσυρθείτε από την Ομάδα των 30. Όλοι ξέρουμε ότι αυτό το διάστημα η οικονομία της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και της ευρωζώνης πάει κάπως καλύτερα, αλλά αυτό δεν μπορεί να κρύψει τα ελλείμματα και τα κατασκευαστικά προβλήματα της ευρωζώνης: ατελής οικονομική ένωση, ατελής τραπεζική ένωση, έλλειμμα διαφάνειας και δημοκρατικής λογοδοσίας, μονομέρεια στη λιτότητα.

Πρέπει να δρομολογηθούν άμεσα το ευρωπαϊκό σύστημα εγγύησης καταθέσεων και πολιτικές εναρμόνισης που θα κλείσουν τις μαύρες τρύπες μέσα από τις οποίες περνά η εκτεταμένη φοροδιαφυγή των μεγάλων πολυεθνικών αλλά και τα συστήματα απάτης και κλοπής του ΦΠΑ, μέσω των οποίων χάνουν τόσο η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση όσο και τα κράτη μέλη τεράστια ποσά σε βάρος των έντιμων φορολογουμένων. Αυτά περιμένουμε από εσάς.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Molly Scott Cato, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, it is ten years now since the irresponsible activities of bankers and the structural problems of the global banking system led to the bailing out of the financial sector at great public cost. While the activities of central banks have patched up the system, many of the fundamental design flaws have not been addressed. There is still an urgent need for deep structural reform of the euro area banking system, as institutions remain too big or too interconnected to fail.

My group remains concerned that this point is not being adequately addressed in the report. In our view, the ECB remains a provider of implicit public subsidies to these institutions that represent a fundamental threat to the stability and efficient allocation of capital in the EU and internationally.

As Greens, we are also determined to ensure that the ECB’s activities are consistent with our Paris climate commitments and that the asset purchase programme does not undermine our rapid transition away from fossil fuels.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  David Coburn, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, I would suggest to Signor Draghi that he and all of Europe should be concerned with the way Messrs Barnier and Verhofstadt are treating the City of London in these so-called Brexit ‘negotiations’, which are nothing of the sort. Whether Barnier or Verhofstadt like it or not, the City of London is the banker of Europe, if not the world, and it will remain so after Brexit. By not organising a proper deal, Verhofstadt and Barnier are threatening the stability of the eurozone. As euro fanatics, Barnier and Verhofstadt would rather damage the economic future of the people of Europe than in any way upset the European project, which is their sole objective and fanaticism.

Barnier’s job is not to negotiate a deal but to nobble, destroy, damage Britain’s ability to embarrass the European Union by running an effective market—driven economy rather than the European command economy envisioned by the European project which has failed so miserably in eastern Europe over the last 50 years.

Mr Draghi, more than anyone, as an Italian banker, should know the precarious situation many Italian banks are in, and that creating problems in the City of London and making it harder for Italian banks and people round Europe to obtain credit may well damage Italian banks and push them over the edge into bankruptcy, followed by the eurozone. This will hardly help small businesses all over Europe.

Why should Britain care? Well, quite frankly, we don’t want an economic basket case on our frontier. We want to trade with you. We want to do business with you. We want to be friends with you, but we want to retain our own bank accounts and our own economy as we are quite entitled to do. I would ask you, Mr Draghi, are you not concerned about what’s going on with Barnier and Verhofstadt?

Thank you for your indulgence, Mr President.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Bernard Monot, au nom du groupe ENF. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Président Draghi, la doxa mondialiste actuelle voudrait faire croire que l'économie va mieux, et notamment que le redressement de la croissance dans les pays de l'Union européenne serait dû à la politique accommodante de la BCE, mais cette vision idéalisée ne prend pas en compte le niveau très élevé des risques systémiques.

Pour le Front national, il y a six zones de danger pour l'économie mondiale, sur lesquelles la BCE a une influence. Tout d’abord, le volume d'endettement privé au sein des pays de l'OCDE est himalayen. La remontée des taux d'intérêt à long terme aura un effet catastrophique, avec des faillites en chaîne.

Deuxièmement, le risque d'effondrement des marchés financiers, encore plus important qu'en 2000 et 2008, se concrétisera lorsque les banques centrales cesseront leurs injections de surliquidités.

Troisièmement, l'expansion hors de contrôle du shadow banking: l'élite politique et financière essaie de duper l'opinion publique en prétextant que le système bancaire serait maintenant plus sûr grâce aux règles de Bâle, mais paradoxalement le shadow banking, cette finance de l'ombre, est à haut risque. Les gérants d'actifs, de hedge funds et des compagnies d'assurance, notamment, n'ont jamais été aussi extrêmes dans leurs implications.

Quatrièmement, les CCP: ces chambres de compensation des marchés financiers mondiaux sont de véritables bombes à retardement. Elles concentrent plus que jamais tous les risques de marché et l'interopérabilité, c'est-à-dire l'interconnexion des CCP, multiplie le risque d'effet domino jusqu'à l'effondrement de tout le système financier mondial. La BCE stoppera-t-elle une telle contagion par la faillite d'une CCP?

Cinquième danger, le monde parallèle du block chain, et enfin la cybersécurité, avec des cyberattaques terroristes du système.

Loin de votre résilience fantasmée, Monsieur Draghi, le modèle économique ultralibéral et mondialiste nous conduit vers le pire krach de tous les temps. J'espère que la BCE en est consciente et s'y prépare.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Presidente. – Per quanto riguarda le domande "blue card", io le concedo dopo che hanno parlato i rappresentanti a nome dei gruppi, perché poi ognuno ha la possibilità di replicare. L'onorevole Coburn ha parlato ora. L'onorevole Henkel potrà chiedere la parola dopo. Adesso la parola è all'onorevole Balz.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Burkhard Balz (PPE). – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrter Herr Präsident Draghi! Ich freue mich, dass wir heute zu dieser außerordentlich wichtigen Debatte hier zusammengekommen sind. Die EZB hat in den letzten Jahren einige wegweisende Entscheidungen treffen müssen, die bedeutend zur Stabilität des Euros und zum Aufschwung in der Realwirtschaft beigetragen haben. Es scheint, als seien wir nun auch dank des beherzten Eingreifens Ihrer Zentralbank und der Politik über viele Krisen hinweg. Europa und auch die Euro-Zone wachsen so stark wie selten.

Und dennoch lassen die Herausforderungen nicht nach. Die technologischen Entwicklungen auf den Finanzmärkten finden derzeit in einem atemberaubenden Tempo statt. In den letzten Wochen haben uns die erheblichen Kursschwankungen der Kryptowährungen und die damit einhergehenden großen Verluste vieler Anleger wieder vor Augen geführt, dass virtuelle Währungen schon lange kein Spielgeld mehr für einige wenige Technikbegeisterte sind.

Viele Finanzinstitutionen – darunter europäische Großbanken – fordern nun von uns, dass wir handeln, um den relativ neuen Markt für virtuelle Währungen mit seinen drastischen Kursausschlägen zu zügeln. Dabei gilt es jedoch zunächst, den Regulierungsbedarf festzustellen, ohne den Spielraum für Innovationen und Entwicklungen auf dem digitalen Marktplatz zu stark einzuschränken.

Herr Draghi, virtuelle Währungen werden auch für die EZB eine der großen Herausforderungen der Zukunft sein. Wie schätzen Sie den Regulierungsbedarf auf diesem Gebiet ein, und welche Mittel und Instrumente gedenken Sie als Zentralbank einzusetzen, um dieses Thema anzugehen?

(Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ gemäß Artikel 162 Absatz 8 derGeschäftsordnung zu beantworten.)

 
  
  

Preşedinte: IOAN MIRCEA PAŞCU
Vicepreședinte

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Hans-Olaf Henkel (ECR), Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Herr Balz, wir haben ja vorhin Herrn Draghi gehört, der davon sprach, dass wir Verantwortung brauchen. Die Kommission hat vorhin gesagt, dass sie dafür ist, dass die Bankenunion nun vollendet wird. Ich frage Sie mal: Was halten Sie eigentlich davon, wenn wir jetzt demnächst gemeinsame Haftung haben – das ist ja genau das, was die Kommission will – und dann der deutsche Sparer für das Gezocke von französischen, italienischen und griechischen Banken haftet?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Burkhard Balz (PPE), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. Na, nun habe ich heute mal ein anderes Thema gewählt, und zwar das der technologischen Herausforderungen. Aus gutem Grund, weil ich natürlich auch keinen deutschen Wahlkampf, den wir hoffentlich abgeschlossen haben, hier ins Parlament bringen wollte. Aber Sie kennen meine Meinung: Ich war über die Jahre hinweg – glaube ich – einer derjenigen hier im Parlament, der eben genau diese Themen nie, wirklich nie, wollte, und das gilt für den Abgeordneten Balz bis zum heutigen Tag.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Roberto Gualtieri (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, io vorrei ringraziare il relatore Fernández e tutti i gruppi politici per il contributo a questo testo equilibrato, in cui viene espresso, con chiarezza, un giudizio positivo sull'azione di politica monetaria della BCE e si riconosce l'importanza delle misure non convenzionali per garantire la stabilità dei prezzi, evitare la deflazione e migliorare l'accesso al credito di imprese e famiglie e, in ultima istanza, per il rilancio della crescita economica e dell'occupazione.

Come lei ha detto, Presidente Draghi, se i risultati tuttavia sono indubbiamente positivi, non possiamo ancora dichiarare vittoria, e la decisione di proseguire il programma di acquisto titoli fino a settembre, e oltre se necessario, è quindi pienamente condivisibile.

Naturalmente, la politica monetaria da sola non è sufficiente a garantire il passaggio da una ripresa ciclica ad una strutturale. Per questo, da un lato, è necessario un policy mix adeguato, con riforme strutturali socialmente equilibrate, volte ad aumentare il potenziale di crescita e una politica di bilancio che, a livello aggregato, si muova di pari passo con la politica monetaria e non contro di essa, e, dall'altro lato, occorre completare l'Unione economica e monetaria e rafforzarne governance e strumenti.

Il pacchetto di riforma presentato dalla Commissione rappresenta, da questo punto di vista, un primo passo importante. Il Parlamento fa la sua parte per renderlo più ambizioso e anche per concorrere a garantire l'indipendenza della BCE anche nei delicati passaggi che ci attendono nel rinnovo di alcune posizioni di vertice del suo Consiglio.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Stanisław Ożóg (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Kiedy trzy lata temu EBC ogłosił program skupu europejskich obligacji, zgłaszaliśmy swoje zastrzeżenia co do skuteczności tych działań. Z perspektywy czasu okazuje się, że mieliśmy rację i że tanie finansowanie trafia głównie do sektora publicznego, który większość wydatków przeznacza na konsumpcję. Trudno mówić zatem o spektakularnym efekcie inflacyjnym, a śmiesznością chyba byłaby mowa o efekcie rozwojowym. Tych konkluzji w sprawozdaniu pana Fernándeza niestety brakuje. Rozczarowuje również fakt, że pozytywnie ocenia Pan federalny charakter EBC oraz popiera dalszą emisję europejskich bezpiecznych aktywów, czyli euroobligacji. Polska delegacja nie może w pełni poprzeć tego sprawozdania i wstrzyma się od głosu.

Panie Prezesie EBC, chwalił się Pan wysokim wzrostem PKB w strefie euro. Chcę przypomnieć Panu to, o czym Pan wie: że są kraje w Unii Europejskiej z ponad dwukrotnie wyższym rozwojem gospodarczym.

(Mówca zgodził się odpowiedzieć na pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki (art. 162 ust. 8 Regulaminu))

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Maria Grapini (S&D), Întrebare adresată conform procedurii „cartonașului albastru”. –Am dedus că sunteți nemulțumit de politica făcută de Banca Europeană, având în vedere că nu s-a văzut o scădere semnificativă a inflației, dar, în raport, este precizat la punctul 18.

Dumneavoastră considerați că politica monetară este suficientă pentru redresarea economică și pentru creșterea economică sau avem nevoie și de politici fiscale, politici sociale, ca să putem ajungem la scăderea șomajului, la creștere economică și, evident, la o scădere a inflației?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Stanisław Ożóg (ECR), odpowiedź na pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Na pewno sama polityka monetarna, sama polityka fiskalna czy sama polityka społeczna nie rozwiąże problemu rozwoju gospodarczego. Konieczna jest suma działań, pełen pakiet funkcjonowania na rynku, ażeby pobudzić jego rozwój. W przypadku EBC uważam, że nie do końca wywiązuje się on ze swojego zakresu działalności.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Sophia in ‘t Veld (ALDE). – Mr President, I have two very specific questions for President Draghi.

First of all, since 2014, the ECB’s annual reports have referred to monetary financing issues in Hungary. The ECB has repeatedly asked for assurances that central bank resources are not being used for financing the state as this is banned under Article 123 of the treaties. In 2016, in response to a question from my colleague Mr Bullmann, the ECB stated that it was monitoring the situation. In 2017, I put the same question and got the same reply, namely that you were monitoring the situation. Now it is 2018, do you consider that the situation in Hungary has been remedied or is there evidence of a violation of Article 123?

My second question is as follows. In several Member States the pension systems show considerable weaknesses and shortcomings, and that is contrary to the aim of sustainable public finance. Do you consider that governments are doing enough to reform their pension systems?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Barbara Kappel (ENF). – Herr Präsident, Herr Vizepräsident Dombrovskis, Herr Präsident Draghi! Im EZB-Jahresbericht 2016 werden vier zentrale Risiken für die Finanzstabilität im Euro-währungsgebiet aufgeführt. Es sind dies der Anstieg der globalen Risikoprämien, die geringe Rentabilität der Banken, die Tragfähigkeit der Staats- und Unternehmensverschuldung und die Liquiditätsrisiken im Bereich der Investmentfonds. An dieser Ausgangssituation hat sich leider auch für 2018 nicht viel geändert. So ist beispielsweise die Rendite italienischer Staatsanleihen mit einer Laufzeit von zehn Jahren seit 2016 um 0,7 Prozentpunkte auf nunmehr 2 % angestiegen.

Die EZB hält heute deutlich mehr italienische und französische Schuldtitel, als es der Kapitalschlüssel der nationalen Notenbanken vorsieht. Das deutet in der Regel darauf hin, dass die Renditen dieser Anleihen unter hohem Aufwertungsdruck stehen. Dazu kommen strukturelle Probleme in den Mitgliedstaaten der Euro-Zone. Wirtschaftswachstum und Arbeitslosenzahlen entwickeln sich uneinheitlich, und auch die Inflationsrate bleibt unter den Zielvorgaben.

Vor diesem Hintergrund hat der ECON-Ausschuss im November letzten Jahres einen Initiativbericht verabschiedet, der mehr Transparenz und eine höhere Rechenschaftspflicht gegenüber dem Parlament, also einen besseren geldpolitischen Dialog fordert. Ein transparenter, verbesserter geldpolitischer Dialog, z. B. unter Einbeziehung der nationalen Parlamente, wie wir das im Europäischen Semester haben, wäre wünschenswert. Ich freue mich schon, Ihre konkreten Vorschläge zu hören.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Brian Hayes (PPE). – Mr President, I welcome the report by my colleagues and thank them for that report, and welcome President Draghi to the European Parliament. When one looks back at the last 10 years, significant progress has been made in getting the eurozone economy to a much better place. We look at the job numbers, we look at GDP growth, especially in the last three years, and we look at the emerging investment which is taking place. Getting inflation close to 2% is not just important in terms of reflating the eurozone economy, but it is also important in helping to reduce debt piles, which are very significant in countries that went through a bailout programme such as my own, so I recognise that progress.

I also recognise the very significant impact that you have made, President Draghi, in terms of the bond-buying exercise that you directed with the Governing Council, and that sends out a strong message of trying to reflate the economy at a time when we needed funding. We recognise that it will come to an end at some point, it will be tapered, but I think there are issues still, and I have raised them before, surrounding how much each Member State is asked to give in terms of the national outstanding amount.

My issue is to ask you once again to continue a dialogue with policymakers and Member States, and especially go to Member State parliaments. I hope you will have an opportunity to visit the Irish Oireachtas and possibly the Finance Committee between now and the end of your mandate in October 2019. I think that sends out the right signal to Member States, to national parliaments, to have an engagement with the President of the ECB so that those Member State policymakers are aware of the objectives for our currency.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Sven Giegold (Verts/ALE), blue-card question. – Thank you, Brian, for accepting this question. We are coming up to a Parliament vote on possible candidates for the Executive Board and I’m asking myself whether it is a good development that former finance ministers, who have basically participated for years in the Eurogroup, are now sent right away to sit on the ECB’s Board? Does this correspond to the value of independence of central banks for which your party family has also fought, and for which there is a great tradition, also in Germany? Do you think it’s a positive development that we have this sort of candidates?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Brian Hayes (PPE), blue-card answer. – I want to thank my colleague for a very good question. I believe that the issue of the appointment of ECB Board members must obviously concern the question of technical competence and technical performance, but also the question of accountability. It is obviously open for all Member States to put forward various candidates, that are then to be considered by the Eurogroup and ultimately by the Council, and indeed by this Parliament in our deliberations. I am not going to preclude anyone, but I am simply saying that it is important that that question of objectivity, independence and technical competence are the key characteristics for us all to consider before a decision is made.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Bernd Lucke (ECR). – Herr Präsident! Dieser Bericht zur Europäischen Zentralbank ist der beste Bericht, den ich in diesem Haus bislang gelesen habe. Er macht viele wichtige, richtige, kritische Bemerkungen über die Geldpolitik der Europäischen Zentralbank in ihren Auswirkungen auf Sparer, auf Rentenversicherung, auf die Stabilität des Bankenwesens und ähnliche Dinge. Er macht auch eine ganz entscheidend wichtige Bemerkung gleich am Anfang: Monetäre Staatsfinanzierung ist verboten. Und dann verwickelt er sich leider in einen großen Widerspruch, weil er am Ende fordert, dass griechische Staatsanleihen nun auch noch von der Europäischen Zentralbank aufgekauft werden sollen. Das wäre ja genau die monetäre Staatsfinanzierung, die wir nicht haben wollen, insbesondere angesichts des Risikos, dass hier das Emittentenlimit dann plötzlich voll ausgeschöpft wird und die EZB in großen Mengen griechische Staatsanleihen aufkauft. Das darf nicht sein, und das ist eine große Schwäche des Berichts.

Herr Draghi! Die EZB hat aber noch eine andere Herausforderung, und eine Frage möchte ich in diesem Zusammenhang an Sie richten: Das Aufkaufprogramm für Staatsanleihen ist grob verzerrt zugunsten bestimmter, vor allem südeuropäischer Staaten. Professor Heinemann hat heute erneut in der F.A.Z. darauf hingewiesen, hat auch Ihre sogenannten Widerlegungen widerlegt. Können Sie bitte dazu Stellung nehmen, aus welchem Grunde die EZB solche Staatsanleihen viel zu stark aufkauft?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marcus Pretzell (ENF). – Herr Präsident, Herr Draghi! Ein Jahrzehnt Finanzkrise, und Europa war ursprünglich weder Ausgangspunkt noch Zentrum dieser Krise. Man kann vielleicht auch sagen: Die Krise ist in Europa nicht mehr ganz so akut. Aber wir haben es geschafft, zum chronisch kranken Mann zu werden, denn außerhalb des Euro-Raumes haben sich die Kennzahlen deutlich besser entwickelt als im Euro-Raum. Inflationszahlen, Geldmengenwachstum, Target-Salden, Kennzahlen an den Finanzmärkten und an den Bankenmärkten, BIP, Investitionszahlen, Arbeitslosenzahlen – das alles sind Kennzahlen, die auch für die Zukunft nichts Gutes erwarten lassen, jedenfalls nicht die große Wende, die wir alle seit Jahren erwarten.

Und da kommt nun vielleicht ganz recht ein gutes Signal für Sie, Herr Draghi, aber ein schlechtes für alle Bürger in Europa aus Deutschland, wo man angekündigt hat, den Krisenfonds ESM jetzt europäisch zu institutionalisieren und als europäische Institution Ihnen tatsächlich zu übergeben. Das mag Ihrer losen Währungspolitik zugutekommen, ist aber ein ganz, ganz schlechtes Signal für alle deutschen Sparer.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Werner Langen (PPE). – Herr Präsident! Wir behandeln ja das Jahr 2016: den Bericht der EZB. Die Zeit ist vorangeschritten und es haben sich viele Dinge geändert: der Antrag Großbritanniens, die amerikanische Präsidentenwahl mit allen Folgen. Es haben sich also Rahmenbedingungen geändert, die nicht nur auf die Finanzkrise vor zehn Jahren zurückweisen, sondern auch im weltweiten Rahmen. Die Währungsschwankungen sind größer geworden, und der Präsident der EZB sagt: Wir haben bisher alles richtig gemacht, wir setzen das einfach so fort.

Deshalb stellt sich die Frage: Erstens, wenn Sie sagen, wir brauchen in den Mitgliedstaaten Reformen, da kann ich Ihnen 100 % zustimmen, das haben Sie immer gesagt. Aber bevor wir Einlagensicherungen und Abwicklungsfonds als Teil des Bankenpakets verabschieden, brauchen wir diese Reformen wirklich.

Das zweite Thema ist nach meiner Überzeugung: Wenn wir einen Europäischen Währungsfonds schaffen – ich bin dafür –, dann muss klar sein, wie er kontrolliert wird und wie er finanziert wird und wer die letzte Verantwortung dafür trägt.

Insofern sind viele Fragen im Reformpaket offen. Und es wird jetzt darauf ankommen, Herr Präsident Draghi, dass Sie eine moderate Wende in der Zinspolitik einleiten.

 
  
  

PRESIDE: RAMÓN LUIS VALCÁRCEL SISO
Vicepresidente

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Mario Borghezio (ENF). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, quali sono le conseguenze della politica illustrata e anche lodata nella relazione? Che i titoli di debito sovrano, prima acquistati dalle banche private, oggi si trovano depositati negli attivi delle banche centrali nazionali.

Chi ci guadagna? Uno solo: la Germania. Il venditore e finanziatore, che peraltro aveva scelto, sbagliando, il suo debitore – Grecia e Spagna – e si vede salvato da noi poveri contribuenti dei poveri Stati del Sud Europa. Per salvarlo, ci siamo indebitati proprio con la BCE. Oggi siamo nella situazione in cui è facile prevedere che i tassi finanziari aumenteranno a danno di chi si è indebitato, cioè nostro, in generale, con un rischio evidente, vale a dire quello di destabilizzazione dei mercati finanziari.

Altro tema è il MUV, responsabile unico della vigilanza europea, sottratta alle banche centrali, che non ha tutelato i depositanti. Nonostante gli stress test, c'è stata una serie paurosa di crack bancari, situazione che oggi è al centro e all'attenzione degli elettori italiani, con responsabilità gravissime nel governo.

Qual è stata, mi domando e spero che lei risponda, l'attività di monitoraggio e di controllo del MVU? Ci può dare dati concreti? Ci può dare garanzie per il futuro? E poi, e concludo Presidente Draghi, vuole finalmente avere il coraggio di dire quello che lei sa benissimo, e cioè che i derivati sono una cellula tumorale del sistema finanziario?

 
  
 

Intervenciones con arreglo al procedimiento de solicitud incidental de uso de la palabra («catch the eye»)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Raport z roku 2016 jest drugim raportem, który przeczytałem – po roku 2015 – i muszę powiedzieć, że z samego raportu jestem usatysfakcjonowany. Zarówno z tych informacji, które dotyczą procesu wykupu euroobligacji, zawarcia pakietu stabilności, jak i również innych elementów.

Natomiast to, co mnie dziś niepokoi, to brak polityki informacyjnej na tyle precyzyjnej, aby na tej sali nie pojawiały się tak poważne rozpiętości dotyczące przyszłej polityki obejmującej euroobligacje. Z jednej strony padają informacje, opinie, że dobrze się dzieje, że bank cofa się w tej polityce, a z drugiej strony sali padają zarzuty, iż ta polityka prowadzona czy kontynuowana będzie źródłem poważnych kłopotów i perturbacji w europejskich finansach. Zwracam uwagę na konieczność lepszej polityki informacyjnej.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, concordo nel sostenere la necessità a livello europeo di politiche nazionali di bilancio sane e favorevoli alla crescita, nel rispetto del Patto di stabilità, nonché riforme socialmente equilibrate ma anche ambiziose.

La previsione di un tasso di inflazione nella zona euro al di sotto del 2 % fino al 2020 conferma che la politica monetaria, da sola, non è sufficiente a sostenere la ripresa economica. Essa va assolutamente accompagnata da politiche concrete a livello nazionale e comunitario.

È indispensabile un miglioramento delle condizioni di accesso al credito per le PMI. Il persistere di condizioni differenziate di credito negli Stati membri non potrà favorire uno sviluppo economico sano ed armonizzato. Credo anche che siano fondate le preoccupazioni per le incerte conseguenze legate allo strumento del quantitative easing, per effetto della ripresa dei consumi.

Ringrazio il Presidente Draghi per il coraggio delle scelte adottate in questi anni difficili. Penso però che i compiti della BCE richiedano una maggiore trasparenza nei confronti del grande pubblico e un maggiore obbligo di rendiconto nei confronti del Parlamento.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Draghi, οι ευθύνες της Ευρωπαϊκής Κεντρικής Τράπεζας, ως μέλους της τρόικας, για τη μετατροπή της Ελλάδας σε ένα απέραντο κοινωνικό νεκροταφείο είναι τεράστιες. Αυτό έχει συνομολογηθεί ακόμη και από τον κύριο Dijsselbloem, ο οποίος δήλωσε ότι τα μνημόνια διέσωσαν τις ξένες τράπεζες και όχι την Ελλάδα. Όμως η ΕΚΤ συνεχίζει το «business as usual» σε σχέση με τα κόκκινα δάνεια, απαιτώντας την ενεργοποίηση των ηλεκτρονικών πλειστηριασμών προκειμένου τα «κοράκια» να αρπάξουν τα σπίτια των Ελλήνων.

Επιπλέον, η ΕΚΤ συνεχίζει παράνομα να αρνείται την ένταξη των ελληνικών εταιρικών ομολόγων, καθώς και των κρατικών ελληνικών ομολόγων, στην ποσοτική χαλάρωση, και όλα αυτά τη στιγμή που η Τράπεζα της Ελλάδος, μόνο για τη διετία 2015-2016, δαπάνησε 42,5 δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ για τη συμμετοχή της στην ποσοτική χαλάρωση.

Τέλος, κύριε Draghi, για άλλη μια φορά επισημαίνουμε ότι η ΕΚΤ πρέπει επιτέλους να αποχωρήσει από την τρόικα, προκειμένου να παύσει η σύγκρουση συμφερόντων που υπάρχει, δεδομένου ότι η ΕΚΤ «φοράει τέσσερα καπέλα»: είναι μέλος της τρόικας, είναι δανειστής των κρατών μελών, ελέγχει τις συστημικές τράπεζες και υποτίθεται ότι είναι ανεξάρτητη νομισματική αρχή.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Νικόλαος Χουντής (GUE/NGL). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η πολιτική μου ομάδα έχει καταθέσει δύο τροπολογίες στη σχετική έκθεση και σας καλώ να τις υπερψηφίσετε. Με την πρώτη τροπολογία ζητάμε να καταδικαστεί η κερδοσκοπική συμπεριφορά της Ευρωπαϊκής Κεντρικής Τράπεζας στην περίπτωση των ελληνικών ομολόγων που εξαιρέθηκαν από τη διαδικασία του κουρέματος το 2012, η οποία απέφερε κέρδη σχεδόν 6,2 δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ στο ευρωσύστημα, όπως έχει ομολογήσει ο κύριος Draghi σε σχετική ερώτηση. Η διαδικασία αυτή προκάλεσε πρόσθετες δημοσιονομικές πιέσεις και δεινά για τον ελληνικό λαό. Θέλουμε να καλέσουμε το ευρωσύστημα να επιστρέψει άνευ όρων τα κέρδη αυτά στην Ελλάδα και, σε διαφορετική περίπτωση, η ελληνική κυβέρνηση να μην πληρώσει αυτά τα ομόλογα, ούτως ώστε να μπορέσουν να ακυρωθούν τα μέτρα λιτότητας που συμφώνησε η ελληνική κυβέρνηση για τα επόμενα 36 χρόνια, μεταξύ των οποίων είναι η μείωση του αφορολογήτου και το κόψιμο των συντάξεων.

Με τη δεύτερη τροπολογία θα θέλαμε να εκφραστεί η αποδοκιμασία για το γεγονός ότι οι προσπάθειες μείωσης των κόκκινων δανείων που προωθούν η Ευρωπαϊκή Κεντρική Τράπεζα και τα κράτη μέλη, σε πολλές περιπτώσεις έχουν ως συνέπεια την προσβολή του θεμελιώδους δικαιώματος στη στέγαση, με αποτέλεσμα χιλιάδες νοικοκυριά χαμηλού εισοδήματος να χάνουν ή να ζουν με τον φόβο ότι θα χάσουν τα σπίτια τους λόγω τραπεζικών χρεών.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Λάμπρος Φουντούλης (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, το πρώτο άρθρο της έκθεσης που συζητάμε σήμερα είναι και το πιο σημαντικό. Μεγάλη σπουδή επιδεικνύει το Κοινοβούλιο προκειμένου να εξασφαλίσει ότι σε καμία περίπτωση δεν θα αμφισβητηθεί η ανεξαρτησία της Ευρωπαϊκής Κεντρικής Τράπεζας. Ταυτόχρονα όμως, ο οργανισμός αυτός όχι απλώς επηρεάζει αλλά σε μεγάλο βαθμό καθορίζει τις ζωές των ευρωπαίων πολιτών. Πότε ρωτήθηκαν οι πολίτες; Πότε συναίνεσαν στο να παραχωρήσουν μια τόσο μεγάλη εξουσία σε έναν ανεξάρτητο οργανισμό; Πότε αφαιρέθηκε η εξουσία αυτή από τα κράτη και ποια δημοκρατική νομιμοποίηση έχει ο οργανισμός αυτός;

Ο δήθεν έλεγχος του Ευρωκοινοβουλίου δεν έχει κανένα νόημα γιατί γίνεται κατόπιν εορτής και, επιπλέον, είναι επιδερμικός και χωρίς ουσία. Γιατί δεν έχει καθαιρεθεί ο πρόεδρος της Ευρωπαϊκής Κεντρικής Τράπεζας μετά από τη χαρακτηριστική αποτυχία του στη διαχείριση της κρίσης; Σε ποια ιδιωτική εταιρεία θα είχε παραμείνει στη θέση του ο διευθύνων σύμβουλος εάν δεν μπορούσε να αντιμετωπίσει μια κρίση εδώ και δέκα χρόνια; Ζητάμε την επιστροφή των αρμοδιοτήτων αυτών στις εθνικές κεντρικές τράπεζες και τον έλεγχο αυτών από τα κράτη μέλη ως πρώτο βήμα προς την ανάκτηση της εθνικής κυριαρχίας και ανεξαρτησίας.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Gabriel Mato (PPE). – Señor presidente, señor Draghi, la Unión Europea ha atravesado uno de los momentos clave de su historia. Hemos visto una situación de falta de crédito, particularmente para las pymes, que dificultaba la recuperación económica, y una baja inflación que impedía a los Estados miembros de la Unión aliviar sus niveles de deuda. El Banco Central Europeo ha desempeñado un papel muy importante en la recuperación económica, pero ha quedado claro que la política monetaria por sí sola no basta para lograr una recuperación económica sostenible y más equilibrada e integradora.

Usted lo ha dicho, hacen falta reformas estructurales. Y España es un buen ejemplo de ello. Actualmente las ha hecho y crece por encima del 3 % y ha creado a lo largo de los últimos tres años más de medio millón de puestos de trabajo anualmente.

Podemos hacer un balance positivo de la actuación del Banco Central Europeo, con una reciente mejora de las expectativas tanto para 2018 como para 2019. Entramos ahora en un escenario de retirada de estímulos gradual en tiempo y cantidad, garantizando que en ningún momento se ponga en riesgo la recuperación económica.

Para concluir, quiero felicitar al autor del informe. Y me gustaría hacer un llamamiento, en línea con el dictamen del Banco Central Europeo, para que se continúe con las negociaciones para el establecimiento del Sistema Europeo de Garantía de Depósitos como tercer pilar de una auténtica unión bancaria, que contribuirá a reforzar y salvaguardar la estabilidad financiera de la Unión Europea.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, am citit cu atenție acest raport de 13 pagini și trebuie să spun că sunt dezamăgită văzând că doar un rând și jumătate, la articolul 24, vorbim de IMM-uri.

Eu cred că toți de aici știm că nu există încă o creditare a IMM-urilor în statele membre, deși ponderea în economia noastră, în piața internă, sunt IMM-urile. Vreau să mă adresez domnului Draghi, dacă poate să ne spună la cuvântul de final dacă își propune ceva BCE legat de posibilitatea practică, nu teoretică, de creditare a IMM-urilor. În raport este prevăzut, sigur, deficitul de productivitate în zona euro și, mai ales, cumva mă îngrijorează că se estimează că acest deficit merge până în 2020. Poate BCE să facă ceva să nu se adeverească acest lucru, adică să nu mergem cu deficit până în 2020?

Sigur, m-ar preocupa să știu și să spun celor care m-au ales dacă studiul de impact asupra politicilor monetare îl puteți transmite în mod transparent, să putem să știm și să informăm cetățenii, pentru că aici vorbim de țări în zona euro și țări care nu sunt încă în zona euro. Aștept cu interes răspunsul.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Joachim Starbatty (ECR). – Herr Präsident! Herr Präsident Draghi, Sie haben uns heute eine Ad-hoc-Theorie präsentiert. Eine Ad-hoc-Theorie ist: Ich mache eine bestimmte Politik und suche die Begründung dafür. In Wirklichkeit ist es ja so, dass Sie seit Ihrem berühmten Wort „whatever it takes“ eine Zinsnivellierungspolitik betreiben, um die notleidenden Schuldnerstaaten vor dem Bankrott zu bewahren. Das ist das Ziel Ihrer Politik. Und die Konsequenz dieser Politik ist, dass hier immer wieder nach Reformen gerufen wird.

Ja, wenn die Zinsen nahezu null sind oder in vielen Bereichen sogar negativ, wenn Sie die Inflationsrate reinrechnen, gibt es keine Reformen. Stattdessen produzieren Sie Blasen. Im Zeitraum 2002 bis 2005 waren auch die Realzinsen in kritischen Staaten negativ, und die Konsequenz waren Immobilienblasen, andere Blasen. Und genau das produzieren wir. Ich sage Ihnen: Sie versuchen jetzt, Probleme zu bekämpfen, und schaffen größere Probleme in der Zukunft.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Franc Bogovič (PPE). – Hvala g. Draghi za poročilo, ki je spodbudno. Govori o gospodarski rasti, o manjši brezposelnosti, večji zaposlenosti v Evropski uniji.

Moja vprašanja so tri: prvič, kaj bo naredila Evropska centralna banka, da bodo državne finance, predvsem pa finance bank, v prihodnje zdrave, da ne bo prišlo do ponovnega plačevanja slabih kreditov s strani davkoplačevalcev držav?

Drugič, kaj lahko stori Evropska centralna banka, da bo razlika med revnimi in bogatimi državami manjša, da ne bomo imeli zopet te težave in da bomo zopet čez nekaj let morali jamčiti za finance posameznih držav?

In tretje vprašanje, kaj ima namen Evropska centralna banka narediti na področju kriptovalut? Vedno večja je ta kapitalska vrednost, baloni so veliki in če želimo imeti urejene te kriptovalute, mora tudi Evropska centralna banka narediti odločne korake v smeri ureditve tega področja.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ivana Maletić (PPE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, pozdravljam svakako aktivnosti Europske središnje banke koja je svojim mjerama omogućila razdoblja povoljnog financiranja i smanjivanje razlika u visini kamatnih stopa među državama članicama, što se u praksi itekako osjeti. To je značajno doprinijelo stvaranju uvjeta stabilnosti, predvidljivosti, sigurnosti i povjerenja, a to su glavni preduvjeti razvoja investicija i novih poslovnih pothvata.

Imam jedno pitanje za predsjednika Draghija, a to je kako povoljne uvjete financiranja učiniti što dostupnijima svim poduzetnicima i rizičnijim projektima zato što nam za snažniji rast i smanjivanje nejednakosti u razvijenosti među državama članicama trebaju inovacije, trebaju nova znanja i vještine koji su temelj novih tehnoloških rješenja, što je temelj za rast produktivnosti, a sve to za bolji rast i stabilniji rast plaća.

Međutim, nedostaje financiranje upravo za te rizičnije projekte koji nas vode u razvoj.

 
  
 

(Fin de las intervenciones con arreglo al procedimiento de solicitud incidental de uso de la palabra («catch the eye»))

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Valdis Dombrovskis, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, first of all I would like to thank honourable Members and President Draghi for the fruitful discussion.

Let me conclude by mentioning a point which directly concerns the Commission. The report encourages the Commission to study schemes such as a Central Bank digital currency and Digital Base Money with a view to improving public access to payment systems. We agree that further study of the potential challenges associated with these schemes to access payment systems is needed. To this end, we will liaise closely with the ECB, as the report invites us to do. We count on your continued support in building the foundations for sustainable growth and job creation in Europe.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Mario Draghi, President of the European Central Bank. – Mr President, let me first thank Mr Fernández and his colleagues for the report. It is very encouraging for our work that you stress how our measures have contributed to the recovery and to financial stability.

You noted in the report that the institutional framework enshrined in the Treaties allowed us to take decisive action in line with our price stability mandate, and this has been the objective of our monetary policy throughout. It still is the objective of our monetary policy. In the course of exchanges we are often told that our monetary policy affects one category or another, but our objective is price stability, defined as an inflation rate which is close to, but below, 2% for the whole of the euro area, not necessarily for one specific country. That is how our monetary policy should be judged: whether in the medium term we reach this objective.

I would like to thank Commission Vice—President Dombrovskis, and all of you, for this very relevant and useful debate. The debate shows that, while we are now seeing the positive results of our policies, we should not be complacent, but should rather strive for continued improvement.

I apologise in advance that, given the short time I have, I cannot comment on each and every statement, but let me touch on some of the issues that you raised.

One issue raised by several honourable Members concerns the effects that our monetary policy has on the distribution of income and wealth. So let me say a few words about the effects of quantitative easing (QE). It is quite clear that QE raises asset prices. The holders of assets are generally wealthy institutions or wealthy people, so in the short run you have a worsening of distribution. At the same time, to the extent that QE is successful, it increases employment – as I have said, and I am going to say it again – and it is by far the most powerful measure for decreasing inequality in any economic system.

From this viewpoint, even though in the short run one has some negative consequences, in the medium and long term the positive consequences outweigh, very consistently and significantly, any short-term negative concerns. This has been shown, by the way, in several studies. The best way to decrease inequality is to increase employment, and that is what we have done, contributing to increasing employment by 7.5 million jobs over three-and-a-half years.

When we look at wage growth – and that is very important for us because it is, in a sense, what tells us whether inflation is moving towards our objective in the medium term – annual growth in terms of compensation per employee increased has gradually from 1.1% in the second quarter of 2016 to 1.7% now. It is still below its historical average, which is 2.1%, so we have to be more patient, but looking at what happens in other jurisdictions – for example the United States which is, by the way, far advanced in the business cycle – we see that wage growth picks up in the end. The recent data in the USA show exactly this.

We have to be aware that we have weak productivity growth, ongoing impacts of labour market reforms implemented in some countries during the crisis and certainly a much bigger labour supply coming from stronger migration flows and higher participation rates. Participation rates of women and older people especially have increased considerably. Also, the low-inflation environment that has prevailed for a long time is now influencing current negotiations. And, by the way, one thing that is quite important in explaining this light response by wages is that even though we had a significant increase in employment, when we go and look at the quality of this increase in employment we see a lot of part-time and temporary arrangements. I am listing all these factors, because they are explanations of why the nominal wage-growth response is going to be lower than we had expected.

But we know by looking at other jurisdictions which had, by and large, the same problems that, in the end, nominal wages are going to go up, and they are going up, albeit at a subdued rate.

As regards the effects of our monetary policy, some speakers questioned the effectiveness of this policy. We have estimated that our measures have made a substantial impact on the economic performance of the euro area. Considering all the measures taken between 2014 (and even before, in 2013) and October 2017, the overall impact on EU area real GDP growth is 1.9%: 1.9 percentage points over three years.

One Member pointed out that investment is still low. We are coming from very, very low levels of private investment but, if anything, over the past three or four quarters, private investment has picked up and it is actually increasing at a much more satisfactory rate than in the past.

Since the end of May 2014, lending rates for households and non-financial firms have declined significantly. There is one thing I said in the introductory statement which is very important: during the crisis we observed widely differing lending rates by banks in different parts of the euro area, but this difference has now shrunk and rates are very close nowadays, as are growth rates, by the way.

One measure we often look at to determine the strength of the growth process and expansion is how different the growth rates are in different parts of the euro area. Well, the degree of difference now is something like we had in 1995—1996. In other words, it is a historical low. All countries nowadays are growing.

By the way, some Members questioned the effectiveness of our monetary policy for SMEs but, in fact, the lending conditions for SMEs have improved significantly across all sectors and countries. The gradual recovery in loan growth is continuing. The recovery started about four years ago and then really picked up, and it is continuing, though we are not seeing anything like we had before the crisis. So growth rates in lending are good, but nothing euphoric like we saw before the crisis.

One point that was made was that we are focused on buying southern countries’ bonds. That is not true. We do not favour certain countries over others in the implementation of our programme. Our purchases are guided by the ECB’s capital key, which takes into account GDP and population. But if one focuses on purchases at specific points in time, for example on 2017 only, this is bound to yield wrong interpretations. The overall stock of euro system holdings is the relevant metric for any assessment of the programme, and not the recent purchase flows. So, in fact, if you look at the stock, you will see that, as far as German bonds are concerned, we are above the capital key for that country.

By and large, one should consider the design of the programme: it is flexible and the distribution of actual purchases on any given day often deviates from the ECB capital key. But just consider: this was in the original design of the programme when we had countries like Greece, whose bonds we did not purchase. Of course, then, we had to deviate from the capital key.

Some other observations concerned the side effects of our monetary policy. I just wish to reiterate that our measures are proving effective but, at the same time, we are aware of potential side effects and we have to differentiate between the various ways in which they affect economic actors.

For example, for individual savers, an accommodative monetary policy means that they accrue fewer nominal returns on their savings. However, such a policy also supports economic expansion and this bolsters employment, income, returns on investment and tax revenues. It therefore benefits households in their capacity as workers, entrepreneurs, investors, borrowers and taxpayers.

There is no one specific country that has benefited most from our monetary policy. Everybody has benefited. Public sectors in all countries saved billions on interest rate payments; private sectors across countries and sectors saved billions on interest rate payments to banks; and purchasers of houses could have access to mortgages with much lower interest rates than at any time in the past. This has not only boosted the construction industry but has also boosted investment for the purchase of houses.

So we see benefits accruing right across society and not specifically located in one country. When the monetary policy is successful, both creditors and borrowers benefit from it.

Similarly, let me continue now on savers. There are several channels through which our policies affect pension and insurance schemes. Beyond the effect on the liability side, it is important to see what happens on the asset side. Our monetary policy has had a beneficial impact on this side of the equation, as the value of the investment portfolio has increased. But, having said that, I completely agree there is a need to put pension systems on a stable path because the survival of any single country’s pension system cannot be dependent only on the proper configuration of interest rates. It must be actuarially sensible.

I have already addressed, in my introductory remarks, the issue of possible asset bubbles currently being formed in the euro area. For the time being, we have little indication that generalised financial imbalances are emerging. There are no signs of general asset-price misalignments in the euro area but some segments do need close monitoring and one of them is the prime commercial real-estate market, where we actually see stretched valuations. Also, in some large cities and in some countries real-estate prices have increased at a faster pace than household incomes. This certainly requires monitoring.

Finally, yields in the euro area corporate bond markets, especially for some of the lower-rated issues, have started to look exceptionally low by historical standards, but what are we going to do? Are we going to change monetary policy because of these side effects which are not, by the way, systemic? No, the answer is to enact macro-prudential policies which are the best tool for tackling these challenges – also given their country-specific and sector-specific remits. In late 2016, the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) issued a set of country-specific warnings on medium-term vulnerability in the EU residential real-estate sector.

Now a word about Brexit. We are not party to these negotiations but we are certainly monitoring their evolution and, clearly, I agree that much depends on these negotiations and possible arrangements. Of course we always prepare for any eventuality and, at the same time, we are assessing the direction, the probability and the potential impact of risk, but the bottom line is that either this transition is well managed and there will not be substantial risks, or it is not, and the risks will be there. We are certainly looking at that and we have to be prepared for that.

Let me also add that, as far as our role as supervisors is concerned, our good cooperation with the Bank of England is important in coping with the potential risks, and especially the risks of any cliff-edge effects. Certainly, transitional arrangements along the lines of the December European Council guidelines could be useful to smooth out the Brexit process but, as we all know, the materialisation of the transition period is still exposed to political uncertainty, and that will remain for some time to come.

On financial supervision, I welcome the review of the European system of financial supervision, including changes to the European supervisory authorities. Some of your comments touched upon the issue of transparency. Here, let me reiterate that we are in complete agreement about the importance of ECB transparency vis-à-vis the European public. We have continuously assessed where we need to further strengthen our transparency framework, and we have demonstrated our commitment, improving our framework as necessary.

Just briefly, let me list a few of the actions we have taken. The accounts of Governing Council discussions are now published four weeks after each monetary policymaking meeting. There was none of that a few years ago. Since 2015, the Executive Board members, as well as the Chair of the Supervisory Board, publish their diaries covering professional meetings with external parties. None of that was in place until a few years ago. And in 2016 we decided to disclose the agreement on net financial assets (ANFA). Last year we also published the text of the emergency liquidity assistance agreement. We have announced transparency in relation to our purchase programme, especially transparency on the corporate sector purchase programme.

Some of you made reference to the European Ombudsman’s recommendations on the interaction of members of the ECB decision-making bodies, including myself, with the Group of 30 (G30). We have certainly taken note of the Ombudsman’s letter and we will respond in time, but let us remember that the European Ombudsman has already concluded that the ECB must conduct dialogue with market participants and that there is no evidence that the G30 meeting could have directly influenced, or have had an adverse impact on, the ECB’s supervisory tasks. The Ombudsman has also confirmed that the ECB has a robust system of safeguards in place to manage its contacts with the financial sector.

Again on transparency, we publish on our website extensive documentation on all these interactions with markets. We disclose agendas and summaries of the discussions, so I can assure you that the ECB is, and remains, committed to reviewing, adjusting and updating our transparency framework.

One or two speakers touched on Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Let me first say that we are not observing a systemically relevant holding of digital currencies by supervised institutions – by banks, in other words. Actually, the credit institutions established in the European Union are showing a limited appetite for digital currencies like Bitcoin, notwithstanding the high level of public interest. However, recent developments, such as the listing of Bitcoin futures contracts by US exchanges, could lead European banks too to hold positions in Bitcoin, and therefore we will certainly look at that.

However, we should understand that Bitcoin and other digital currencies are in the unregulated space and should be regarded as very risky assets. Virtual currencies are subject to high volatility and their prices are entirely speculative. Banks should measure the risk of any holdings of digital currencies in their portfolio accordingly. Right now, digital currencies are not subject to a specific supervisory approach. Work is under way in the Single Supervisory Mechanism to identify potential prudential risks that these digital assets could pose to supervised institutions.

There were some other specific points. We are going to consider the possibility of having a Charlemagne commemorative coin. On monetary financing in Hungary, we will assess the existence of monetary financing in our report. As you know, the ECB is accountable to the European Parliament, but members of its Executive Board, myself included, have accepted invitations to discuss our monetary policy generally and broadly in national parliaments, so I would be glad to accept an invitation from the Irish Parliament if I were to receive it.

I think I have gone through most of your questions. Thank you.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jonás Fernández, ponente. – Señor presidente, quería agradecer especialmente al presidente Draghi y al vicepresidente Dombrovskis que nos hayan acompañado en este debate y, por supuesto, a todos los colegas que han participado, especialmente a los ponentes alternativos —a Mureşan, a Loones, a Torvalds, a Papadimoulis y a Scott Cato— con los que hemos estado discutiendo este informe. Pero quería aprovechar este último minuto para dirigirme al Eurogrupo.

Europa está exigiendo cada día más democracia. Los ciudadanos europeos, en cada una de las citas electorales, nos exigen más transparencia, más rendición de cuentas, más debate público, una mayor capacidad de conocer y discutir las políticas europeas. En las próximas semanas, en los próximos meses, tenemos por delante la discusión para cubrir varias vacantes en el BCE. Y por eso me atrevo a dirigirme, representando a la mayoría de esta Cámara, al Eurogrupo para exigir que nos envíe una lista de candidatos que el Parlamento pueda discutir; una lista que incorpore también el equilibrio de género y que permita a la ciudadanía, a través del debate parlamentario, un conocimiento profundo de los distintos candidatos, de los distintos perfiles; una lista que permita al conjunto de los europeos hacerse dueño de la evolución del BCE.

Así que, aunque a nivel personal tendría algún requerimiento adicional, me quedo en eso: necesitamos acercar Europa a la ciudadanía, necesitamos democratizar más Europa y necesitamos dignificar este Parlamento.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  El presidente. – Se cierra el debate.

La votación tendrá lugar mañana.

Declaraciones por escrito (artículo 162 del Reglamento)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Pirkko Ruohonen-Lerner (ECR), kirjallinen. – Euroalueen kasvulukujen valossa euro on pelastettu. Pelastus nojaa edelleen vahvasti niin rahapoliittiseen kuin investointikysyntäänkin liittyvään elvytykseen. Pelastus voi olla lyhytaikainen pitkäaikaistyöttömien kustannuksella saavutettu voitto ja osoittautua raskaaksi taakaksi varallisuuskuplien puhjetessa ja uuden kriisin alkaessa.

Pitkällä aikavälillä euron pelastaminen edellyttää toimivaa euroaluetta, jossa markkinat ovat tehokkaat ja hintamekanismi ohjaa resurssien kohdentumista. Vain toimivien markkinoiden pohjalta voidaan rakentaa kestävää kilpailukykyä ilman jatkuvaa EKP:n massiivista rahapoliittista elvytystä. Käytännössä euron pelastaminen edellyttää mm. yhtenäisiä työmarkkinoita euroalueella. Erilaiset kielet, kulttuurit ja käytännöt luovat esteitä, joita, kuten muitakin sisämarkkinoiden esteitä, olisi syytä käsitellä asiaan kuuluvissa yhteyksissä myös tässä mietinnössä eikä keskittyä vain poliittisesti sopiviin ongelmiin.

 
Aġġornata l-aħħar: 28 ta' Marzu 2018Avviż legali