Relato integral dos debates

Quinta-feira, 18 de Abril de 2013 - Estrasburgo

4. Versão final do painel de indicadores para o procedimento relativo aos desequilíbrios macroeconómicos (debate)

  La Présidente. - L'ordre du jour appelle le débat sur la question orale à la Commission intitulée "Compléter le tableau de bord pour la procédure concernant les déséquilibres macroéconomiques", de Sharon Bowles, au nom de la commission des affaires économiques et monétaires (O-000039/2013 – B7-0165/2013 – 2013/2582(RSP)).

  Sharon Bowles, author. − Madam President, thank you very much. I do understand that the Commissioner is unavailable since he is on his way to Washington. It seems to be a recurring event that we are unable to hold our debates on questions before the Commissioner, because they are always on a Thursday, and he is always on his way somewhere.

Now, the Six-pack established the Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure (MIP) as an important element supporting the reformed Stability and Growth Pact. It extends monitoring to macroeconomic issues, whereas the pack previously focused on debt and deficits. An important element of this new procedure is the scoreboard of indicators that is a diagnostic tool for the Commission.

In November 2012, the Commission added to the original set a new financial sector indicator on the growth rate of financial sector liabilities. Now, in order to avoid misunderstandings, let me stress that an indicator on the financial sector is very welcome. In fact Parliament had asked for one in December 2011.

However, even though I am not suggesting that the chosen indicator is wrong, the simple fact is that there are many options as to the type of indicator to chose. Unfortunately, the Commission has entirely failed to respect the Six-pack, which establishes the understanding that the Commission should present suggestions for comment to the competent committees of the European Parliament and of the Council on plans to establish and adjust the indicators and thresholds.

In this case, clearly the consultation did not take place. In fact, Parliament received the information on the new indicator only days before the publication of the alert mechanism report in November 2012. Adding insult to injury, it appears that the Council had been consulted, albeit at the technical level through the EFC.

So the message seems not to have quite trickled through yet to the relevant Commission services that Parliament has equal rights with the Council here. Also, one would imagine that it is not so difficult to conduct a consultation with Parliament, even if it means an informal submission of a draft to the secretariat. We in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) have proved in the past that we are efficient and that we collaborate in good faith with the Commission and the Council.

In my capacity as Chair of ECON, I attempted to get clarity on this matter by way of an exchange of letters in December and January, following the publication of the new indicator. I failed to get any sensible explanation from the Commission, which could quite simply have admitted the mistake and promised to do better next time. Indeed, to his credit, when similar mistakes have happened with DG MARE, Commissioner Barnier has done exactly that and acted diligently.

But quite to the contrary, the Commission claimed that everything had been done correctly. Against this background, we saw no other option than to follow up on this through this oral question. The oral question is brief and to the point, and we would very much appreciate a straightforward answer.

Can the Commission explain why it failed to consult Parliament when adding an indicator for the stability of the financial sector ahead of the alert mechanism report in 2013? Does the Commission consider the Parliament resolution of 15 December 2011 on the envisaged initial design of a scoreboard for the surveillance of macroeconomic imbalances, in which Parliament requested an indicator for the financial sector to be added, to constitute a consultation as defined by Recital 12 of the MIP regulation?

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, honourable Members, it is unfortunate that Vice-President Rehn cannot be here today owing to his prior commitments in the context of the G20 and IMF meetings taking place in Washington. He was here earlier this week, as you know, but he is now on his way to Washington.

Before entering into the details of the questions, I should underline that they have – as the honourable Member said – been addressed in this exchange of letters between you and the Vice-President at the beginning of this year. So I will restate what was said in that letter of 4 February, which I am sure all members of the ECON Committee have been given a chance to see.

As emphasised in that exchange, the Commission regrets Parliament’s view that the Commission failed to consult the European Parliament on completion of the Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure scoreboard. That is not our intention, and is not our understanding of the process either.

As a matter of fact, in choosing the eleventh indicator of the MIP scoreboard, the Commission acted in accordance with the relevant Regulation and in pursuit of a political agreement with the Council and Parliament back in late 2011 for completion of a scoreboard with an eleventh indicator.

It is useful to remember that according to that Regulation – the MIP Regulation – it is the task of the Commission to adjust technically the scoreboard definitions. I quote: ‘The Commission shall assess on a regular basis the appropriateness of the scoreboard, including the composition of indicators, the thresholds set and the methodology used, and it shall adjust or modify them where necessary.’

The spirit of close cooperation with the Council and Parliament mentioned in Recital 12, which was cited in your question, is a paramount principle for the Commission. With that in mind, a political agreement with the two co-legislators regarding the financial sector was reached in 2011, through the Parliament Resolution of December 2011 and the ECOFIN Council Conclusions of November 2011. I would stress this aspect: the political choices were made in 2011 together with Parliament. In 2012, there was a technical implementation of the political choice of adding a financial sector indicator to the scoreboard.

Responding specifically to the question: yes, the Commission understands that a consultation took place in 2011 and that Parliament’s resolution back then was the political response to the issues in question. I would also stress that the Commission treated Parliament and the Council on the same footing and informed them at the same time. In carrying out this task, the Commission benefited from the views provided by the Economic Policy Committee. These latter should be regarded as being within the scope of the EPC’s mandate to ‘provide advice to the Commission’.

In conclusion, on behalf of the Commission, I would like to urge the honourable Members to take a proportionate approach to this matter. While Member States continue to experience macroeconomic imbalances to a different degree, a scoreboard that is efficiently designed and implemented is in the EU’s wider interests. As we all know, no choice is free from imperfections; no single indicator, taken in isolation, can fully measure the intricacies of the financial sector and its implications for the real economy.

Because of that, the current scoreboard is never interpreted mechanically or in isolation, it comprises a second layer of indicators and it does not exclude additional ones from consideration in in-depth reviews, which – as you may know – we published on 10 April. I hope that this clarifies the situation.

  Herbert Dorfmann, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, geschätzte Frau Kommissarin, geschätzte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wir, das Europäische Parlament, und wir, die Europäische Volkspartei, haben 2011 zur makroökonomischen Aufsicht Ja gesagt. Das Instrument wurde inzwischen implementiert, und es ist ein ganz zentrales Instrument der gemeinsamen Wirtschaftspolitik der Europäischen Union geworden.

Ich durfte bereits 2011 für meine Fraktion an der Ausarbeitung der Verordnung mitarbeiten. Und bereits damals war die ganz zentrale Frage: Welche Rolle spielt das Europäische Parlament bei der Ausarbeitung des Scoreboards? Es hat damals – und deshalb tut es mir ganz besonders leid, dass Kommissar Rehn nicht da ist – klare Zusagen des Herrn Kommissars Rehn gegeben. Und nur auf der Basis dieser Zusagen hat das Parlament der heutigen Diktion in der Verordnung zugestimmt. Wir waren für eine flexible Handhabung, und das war ein Vertrauensvorschuss an die Kommission.

Nun erleben wir, dass Sie am 19.11. dem Parlament mitteilen, dass es einen weiteren Indikator gibt, um eine Woche darauf Berechnungen mit diesem Indikator vorzulegen. Das heißt, Sie haben über Monate mit diesem neuen Indikator gerechnet, ohne das Parlament darüber zu informieren. Das ist ein grobes Foul!

Worum geht es aber? Da bin ich ganz auf der Seite meiner Kollegin, der Vorsitzenden des Ausschusses, Frau Bowles: Es geht nicht um den Indikator an und für sich. Wir wollen keine parlamentarische Debatte um den Indikator an und für sich und auch nicht um neue Indikatoren. Deshalb wird meine Fraktion den Änderungsanträgen, die heute hier vorliegen, zum größten Teil auch nicht zustimmen.

Worum geht es dann also? Geht es darum, dass wir jetzt hier, um es salopp zu sagen, die beleidigten Leberwürste spielen? Auch darum geht es nicht. Es geht um Akzeptanz! Und die Akzeptanz unserer Europäischen Union wird sich ganz zentral auch in der Akzeptanz der gemeinsamen Wirtschaftspolitik spiegeln. Wenn es uns nicht gelingt, die Menschen in dieser ganz zentralen Frage auf unsere Seite zu bringen, dann werden wir nicht weiterkommen. Und eine Akzeptanz wird es ohne demokratische Absicherung nicht geben. Darum geht es im zentralen Ansatz!

Das sage ich Ihnen als jemand, der aus einem Land wie Italien kommt, wo sich die Frage der Akzeptanz in diesem Moment ganz besonders stellt. Menschen brauchen das Gefühl, dass Entscheidungen, die hier getroffen werden, parlamentarisch abgesichert sind, und dass eine parlamentarische Debatte dahintersteht. Was verlangen Sie jetzt von uns? Verlangen Sie, dass wir Parlamentarier hinausgehen und draußen in den Mitgliedstaaten diese Vorgangsweise verteidigen? Das können wir nicht tun. Die Kommission hat einmal mehr dieses Image des von der Bürokratie geleiteten Europa unterstützt. Und das ist im Grunde schade. Darum geht es!

Wir brauchen gerade in diesem Moment der Konsolidierung und in einem schwierigen Moment einen neuen Ansatz. Das schaffen wir mit dieser Vorgangsweise ganz sicher nicht. Wir, die Europäische Volkspartei, und das Parlament insgesamt wollen, dass die makroökonomische Aufsicht erfolgreich ist. Dazu haben Sie – und die Kommission – mit dieser Vorgangsweise ganz sicher keinen Beitrag geleistet.

Deshalb müssen wir vonseiten des Parlaments vier Forderungen stellen: Erstens: Die Rolle des Parlaments ist zu wahren! Das sollte die Kommission langsam verstehen. Den Vertrag von Lissabon gibt es. Auch das sollte die Kommission verstehen. Zweitens: Das Europäische Parlament und der Rat sind gleichmäßig und gleichwertig zu behandeln! Das ist in dieser Frage nicht passiert. Drittens: Die Rolle, die der European Systemic Risk Board in der Verordnung hat, ist zu wahren! Auch das ist bei dieser Vorgangsweise nicht passiert. Und viertens: Jede weitere Anpassung, die es ohne weiteres geben kann – denn, Frau Kommissarin, das was Sie in Bezug auf die Flexibilität des Scoreboard und der Indikatoren gesagt haben, ist durchaus richtig –, ist dem Parlament frühzeitig mitzuteilen, sodass eine vernünftige und – wie von der Vorsitzenden, Frau Bowles, angedeutet worden ist – effiziente Debatte hier im Haus stattfinden kann.

  Elisa Ferreira, em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhora Presidente, Senhora Comissária, o problema que aqui se coloca é um problema de confiança mútua da parte das duas instituições relativamente aos processos legislativos. Eu fui relatora precisamente deste relatório de desequilíbrios macroeconómicos e posso-lhe assegurar que não há matérias do foro técnico e matérias do foro político porque a escolha dos indicadores e a escolha dos limites de alerta associados a esses indicadores são uma matéria detalhada e é com base nessa informação que a seguir se definem as políticas ou as alterações de políticas. Isto significa que a escolha dos indicadores é uma decisão extraordinariamente importante para se saber para o que é que olhamos e, em função dos resultados que, daquilo que sabemos, daquilo que nós medimos, daquilo que nós entendemos, tomar as decisões mais adequadas.

Faço-lhe notar, e a Sra. Comissária fez referência precisamente ao texto em causa, que no considerando 12 precisamente desta legislação se diz, e vou passar a dizer em inglês:

The Commission should present suggestions for comments to the competent committees of the European Parliament and of the Council on plans to establish and adjust the indicators and thresholds."

Foi isto que foi acordado. É isto que está escrito. Foi esta a base do nosso entendimento interinstitucional e eu pergunto-lhe: mandar-nos uma informação sobre uma alteração de um indicador, considera a Sra. Comissária que isso respeita o espírito e a letra deste considerando? Eu espero que a Comissão revisite o modo como fez esta alteração e corrija o erro claro de relacionamento, na base da boa-fé interinstitucional, que eu considero que foi cometido e que este Parlamento considera que foi cometido.

Não vou acrescentar mais relativamente àquilo que acabou de dizer a Presidente do Comité, Sharon Bowles. Há aqui um problema interinstitucional que vai deixar cicatrizes ou, pelo contrário, um método mais claro e mais transparente de trabalho, de parte a parte, nas fases legislativas que se seguem, e elas são muitas! Por isso era absolutamente essencial que nós partíssemos para tudo aquilo que ainda há para fazer numa base de confiança mútua e não numa base de desconfiança mútua.

ΠΡΟΕΔΡΙΑ: ΑΝΝΥ ΠΟΔΗΜΑΤΑ
Αντιπρόεδρος

  Sylvie Goulard, au nom du groupe ALDE. – Madame la Présidente, Madame Malmström, je suis très contente que ce soit vous qui soyez là aujourd'hui. Pourquoi? À cause de la collégialité de la Commission.

La question dont nous avons à traiter aujourd'hui, comme cela a très bien été dit par Sharon Bowles, par Elisa Ferreira et d'autres, c'est la nature de nos relations.

Dans cette Europe, telle qu'elle est, avec les traités dont nous disposons, est-ce que nous acceptons de faire le maximum pour coopérer ou est-ce que nous essayons de nous faire des coups tordus? Ce n'est pas plus compliqué que cela. Ce n'est pas technique du tout, Elisa Ferreira l'a dit.

Nous avons une marge de manœuvre sans changer les traités, sans aller chercher des trucs compliqués, pour mieux travailler ensemble. Il y a eu un engagement, j'étais également un des rapporteurs du six-pack, je peux donc vraiment témoigner que c'est un des points qui a été l'objet d'une négociation très longue et qu'il est donc important que cette procédure se déroule dans un bon état d'esprit. On arrive à faire des textes à trois, pourquoi n'arriverait-on pas à se mettre d'accord sur des indicateurs, à les affiner?

Cela m'amène au fond, parce qu'en fait, ce qui est très important, c'est de voir l'enjeu derrière tout cela. Ce n'est pas de se faire plaisir en ayant un joli tableau de bord, là n'est pas la question.

Jusqu'à présent, nous avions dans la zone euro, tous ensemble, décidé d'avoir surtout une approche très réductrice, centrée sur la dette et le déficit. Avec le six-pack, nous avons ajouté des instruments nouveaux. Pour la première fois, enfin, nous faisons de l'économie ensemble! Nous essayons de regarder ensemble ce qui ne va pas et nous commençons à toucher des sujets qui sont ceux qui ont un impact sur la vie des citoyens, c'est-à-dire: y a-t-il du chômage? Le niveau des rémunérations horaires des salariés est-il équitable? Voilà les sujets. Si nous n'en débattons pas, si ce parlement n'est pas en mesure de servir au moins de caisse de résonance, de faire au moins passer des messages – je ne dis pas que notre vue doit prévaloir mais qu'il y ait au moins cet espace de discussion – je vais vous dire ce qui va se passer: c'en sera fini de l'aventure européenne!

Ce que beaucoup de gens ne veulent pas comprendre, en ce moment, c'est que la montée du ressentiment mutuel, la montée de la contestation, qu'elle soit fixée sur Bruxelles, qu'elle soit fixée – à tort, à mon avis – sur Berlin, donne à tous les populistes une occasion rêvée de faire des voix sur le dos de l'Europe.

Ou nous réagissons conjointement et intelligemment – et, je le répète, nous nous sommes dotés des instruments qui nous permettent de le faire – ou alors, nous irons collectivement dans un mur. Je crois que ce n'est pas notre intérêt.

Nous avons à remettre à l'agenda européen des questions de compétitivité, des questions d'emploi, des questions d'économie et pas seulement des questions de contrôle mutuel.

  Philippe Lamberts, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Madame la Présidente, je pourrais souscrire à tout ce qu'a dit Sylvie Guillaume à l'instant. Madame la Commissaire, je m'adresse à vous. J'ai entendu vos belles paroles, et votre camarade Olli Rehn ne dit pas autre chose. Je n'en crois pas un mot.

Vous vous êtes payé notre tête lors de l'adoption du premier tableau de bord. Vous deviez nous consulter, vous ne l'avez pas fait. Nous l'avons dit à l'époque. Deuxième édition du tableau de bord, vous nous refaites le même coup.

Nous avions accepté de laisser tomber la codécision sur ce tableau de bord par confiance. Vous avez trahi cette confiance à deux reprises. Nous n'avons donc plus aucune confiance dans la DG ECFIN, d'autant plus que cette DG ECFIN s'obstine à ne pas mettre dans le tableau de bord des paramètres essentiels. Par exemple, sur la productivité, la seule chose qui les intéresse, c'est la productivité du travail. Ils oublient la productivité de l'énergie. Ils oublient la productivité des ressources. Et, comme par hasard, ils oublient la productivité du capital. Et, comme par hasard, les inégalités, c'est quelque chose, en Europe, qu'il ne faut pas regarder. Nous avons 25 % d'Européens en-dessous du seuil de pauvreté et vous préférez regarder ailleurs. Cela ne vous intéresse pas!

J'attends que la Commission change d'opinion et, surtout, change son regard sur la réalité. Nous sommes assis sur une bombe.

  Kay Swinburne, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, I share with many in this Parliament major concerns about the way the Commission is currently treating this Parliament with regard to delegated acts, particularly in this file, but also on some others that I am working on, including EMIR and the reform of the derivatives legislation.

Brokering agreements over level one texts to make crucial decisions at level two and then bypassing Parliament either by not consulting us at all, as in this case, or by adopting decisions with such short deadlines that we in this House do not have time to comment on them, let alone be listened to and replied to, is suddenly becoming par for the course.

Comitology, delegated acts, implementing measures, regulated technical standards: these may be terms that my constituents in Wales have never heard of. But when the European federalist, Professor Geoghegan, states that 98 % of EU legislation is now done in this way and, by his estimation, fewer than 10 people in this Parliament and 50 people outside of Brussels understand the system, it is no wonder that people consider that EU decision-making is undemocratic.

The reasoning behind delegated acts and implementing measures is to make the legislation more flexible and to be able to adapt to change, which I theoretically agree with and support. However, if this is not done in a truly democratic way, respecting the spirit of the Treaty as well as the letter, then it really is no better than actually putting dictats into law.

Personally, I agree in principle with the concept that we actually need a measure on the financial sector liabilities added to the macro-economic scoreboard. However, there are many different ways of measuring this and given the views within the ESRB, they are different to those of the Commission. It does seem that unilaterally deciding to go ahead in this manner without proper consultation is yet another example of the Commission thinking it knows better.

If the EU wants to become relevant to its citizens in their everyday lives, this is not the way to go about it. We need to ensure that correct processes are adopted in order to prevent such an imbalance in treatment of a co-legislator and ensure some democratic scrutiny in this seemingly opaque procedure.

  Auke Zijlstra (NI). - Het Parlement is boos over de procedure die gevolgd is bij de aanpassing van het scorebord, onderdeel van het zogenaamde sixpack, een scorebord dat door de Europese Commissie gebruikt wordt om de lidstaten onderling te beoordelen op economische prestaties en eventueel te straffen.

Toen het sixpack werd aangenomen was mijn partij tegen de beknotting van nationale soevereiniteit, want nationale soevereiniteit is iets om trots op te zijn en niet een historische vergissing. Het scorebord blijkt in de praktijk ook niets op te leveren. Iedereen kan in zijn eigen land constateren dat de werkloosheid te hoog is of de overheidstekorten te groot of de regelgeving te zwaar. Daar is de Commissie niet voor nodig.

Maar het scorebord laat wél zien dat de eurozone niet stabiel is, want Duitsland heeft een dominante positie. Het is echter niet de schuld van Duitsland dat de andere landen niet concurrerend zijn. Lidstaten die niet in staat zijn om hun economie concurrerend te krijgen in dit verband, worden niet geholpen met een scorebord. Die landen zijn niet in staat om te concurreren in de eurozone en zouden dus de muntunie moeten verlaten voor het welzijn van hun land en voor het welzijn van hun burgers.

Dat wij het nu hebben over de procedure rond het scorebord en niet over de implicaties van de machtsoverdracht naar Brussel, geeft goed aan dat het ook in dit Parlement niet om welvaart, maar om macht gaat, en dat is helaas voor de Europese Commissie niet anders.

Of hier nu de juiste procedure gevolgd is, is eigenlijk niet van belang. Lidstaten moeten gaan beseffen dat zij zelf verantwoordelijk zijn voor de welvaart van hun burgers en hun plaats in de wereld.

  Roberto Gualtieri (S&D). - Signora Presidente, la vicenda della mancata consultazione del Parlamento sugli indicatori di stabilità finanziaria non è grave solo di per sé, ma è un segnale più generale del modo sbagliato con cui la Commissione concepisce il proprio ruolo e il rapporto con il Parlamento alla luce delle nuove funzioni sul piano della governance economica che le sono state attribuite dopo la crisi. Questo è il punto politico fondamentale, di cui anche questo episodio è un segnale.

Dietro questo episodio, questa questione metodologica, ce n'è poi una più politica, più profonda. Noi siamo insoddisfatti del modo con cui la Commissione sta utilizzando la procedura per gli squilibri macroeconomici. Questa procedura dovrebbe indicare gli squilibri nella loro reciprocità e interdipendenza: i deficit delle partite correnti ma anche i surplus, il costo del lavoro che cresce troppo rispetto alla produttività, ma anche quello che cresce troppo poco e, invece, questa procedura è utilizzata quasi come un complemento del Patto di stabilita, ancora basata sulla filosofia dei virtuosi e di quelli che devono fare i compiti a casa. È questo il problema fondamentale che, senza un adeguato rapporto con il Parlamento, sarà difficile correggere, con danni profondi sulla qualità della nostra governance economica.

  Mojca Kleva Kekuš (S&D). - Evropski parlament mora biti bolj vključen v izbiro indikatorjev za preglednico, in to so vam danes že popolnoma vsi povedali, lahko samo ponovim, vse kar so že moji kolegi rekli.

Preglednica dosežkov za postopek v zvezi z makroekonomskimi neravnovesji bi morala biti ena izmed postavk, na katero se tudi Komisija v svojih poglobljenih analizah nasloni in tudi svoja dejstva poveže s tem.

A na žalost v luči zadnjih objav prejšnjega tedna, ki so med drugim vključevale tudi mojo državo Slovenijo, ni ravno videti povezave med temi ocenami in med politično oceno in zaključki Komisije.

Ocena, ki jo da Evropska komisija, je izredno pomembna, ima veliko večjo vrednost kot na primer poročilo OECD-ja, ali pa kakšnih nemških ekonomistov. Zato si želim, da je Evropska komisija tukaj zaveznica in rabi Parlament pri temu, ko sprejema take odločitve.

Jaz močno podpiram klic k temu, da morajo razprave o delovanju mehanizma za nadzor nad makroekonomskimi neravnotežji v Evropski uniji biti bolj demokratični. Res, potrebno je vključiti Parlament.

  Antolín Sánchez Presedo (S&D). - Señora Presidenta, la prevención y la corrección de los desequilibrios macroeconómicos excesivos son un pilar fundamental de la gobernanza económica europea; requieren transparencia y un proceso público de deliberación democrática que salvaguarde los intereses de todos los ciudadanos europeos, por eso deben llevarse a cabo con la participación y el control del Parlamento Europeo.

El establecimiento de indicadores es una herramienta política del máximo nivel, es una cuestión democrática y no burocrática, porque con ella se identifican los desequilibrios, se asegura el buen funcionamiento, el mecanismo de alerta y la adopción de medidas correctoras. La Comisión debe efectuarlo en el marco de una democracia parlamentaria, cumpliendo la legislación y los compromisos de buen gobierno.

Por estas razones, tres mensajes: primero, los hechos consumados y la información a posteriori al Parlamento son algo inaceptable; segundo, también lo es la falta de trato igualitario entre los colegisladores; y, tercero, no se puede aplazar más un trato simétrico entre países deficitarios y superavitarios, porque no se puede incentivar el mantenimiento de desequilibrios.

Διαδικασία catch-the-eye

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D). - Doresc să mă alătur şi eu colegilor care au criticat lipsa de informare a Parlamentului în vederea actualizării tabloului de bord pentru supravegherea dezechilibrelor macroeconomice. În ceea ce priveşte rezultatul recentei analize privind corectarea acestor dezechilibre, publicate pe 10 aprilie, constat cu regret că executivul european omite anumite aspecte importante. În primul rând, acesta nu ia în considerare surplusul ca indicator al instabilităţii macroeconomice. Astfel, Germania, care înregistrează un surplus de aproximativ 6% din produsul intern brut, nu este inclusă în mod explicit în analiză. Ba mai mult, scăderea proporţiei venitului naţional dedicat salariilor, o sursă de competiţie negativă la nivel european, devine un model de urmat. Cu toate acestea, sunt de părere, că pentru a elimina disparităţile dintre economiile centrale şi cele periferice, este nevoie de creşterea salariilor în grupul statelor cu economiile cele mai puternice, în paralel cu stimularea competitivităţii şi a cererii în statele din periferie.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). - Frau Präsidentin! Makroökonomische Ungleichgewichte mögen bei der Finanz- und Schuldenkrise durchaus mitgespielt haben. Indes hat uns die Krise eine schmerzhafte Lektion erteilt: Wirtschaftliches Wachstum und Erfolg lassen sich nicht verordnen. Das hat weder mit dem Stabilitätspakt noch auf Befehl der Troika geklappt. Auch eine EU-Wirtschaftsregierung wird meines Erachtens daran kläglich scheitern.

Es gibt kein universelles Patentrezept gegen die Krise. Zu sehr variieren die Voraussetzungen von Land zu Land. Fest steht, dass jeder Mitgliedstaat seine eigenen länderspezifischen Herausforderungen auf seine Art zu meistern hat. Es ist höchste Zeit, dass die EU die Vielfalt der Mitgliedstaaten endlich als Stärke und als Chance erkennt, anstatt auf Gleichmacherei und Zentralismus zu setzen.

Die Entwicklung hin zu einer Schuldentransfer-Union ist an sich schon bedenklich genug. Dass man im Rahmen der EU-Wirtschaftsregierung nun auch nur auf den Gedanken kam, Leistungsbilanzüberschüsse mit Sanktionen zu belegen, zeigt, wes Geistes Kind diese europäische Schnapsidee – wie ich sie bezeichnen möchte – ist.

(Λήξη της διαδικασίας catch-the-eye)

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, I would like to thank honourable Members very much for this debate.

First I will answer a few concrete questions on the issue of productivity and including that in the scoreboard. The alert mechanism report does include productivity as an auxiliary indicator, as well as other productivity related indicators such as investment and R&D spending. Moreover, it also contains unit labour costs, which consider the relative increase of labour costs and productivity.

On symmetry, the Commission has been implementing what it calls intelligent symmetry, considering both current account deficits and current account surpluses, but the risks they raise are very different. Therefore the pressure should not be fully symmetrical. We have produced a whole report to consider this, which I invite you to consult for further discussion on this very important topic.

As I mentioned earlier and as is the line of the whole Commission, as you know we attach the utmost importance to cooperation with this Parliament. In choosing the financial sector indicator, the Commission by no means intended to sidestep this view. In retrospect the margin for notification does indeed seem tight. This is explained, on the one hand, by the fact that technical work within the Commission’s departments was only concluded in mid-November and, on the other, by the Commission’s genuine conviction that Parliament had a priori given its green light.

While the Commission deployed its best efforts to include a financial sector indicator in time for the publication of the alert mechanism report, as requested by Parliament and the Council, it would be regrettable for these efforts to be interpreted as having been undertaken in anything other than good faith. The Commission assures Parliament that it will be informed in good time about the future modification of the MIP scoreboard.

The Commission, across its departments, fully concurs with Parliament in that the only valid culture is one of cooperation, recognition and thereby mutual reinforcement of our institutions’ strength and credibility. In the current situation, where surveillance of macroeconomic imbalances needs to be swift and functional, every opportunity should be used to build proportional and constructive approaches at interinstitutional level. As you probably know, Vice-President Rehn will come to the Committee on Economic Affairs next year, and I am sure he is willing to discuss further issues related to this.

Thank you very much for this debate.

  Πρόεδρος. - Έχω λάβει μία πρόταση ψηφίσματος⁽¹⁾ που έχει κατατεθεί σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 115, παράγραφος 2 του Κανονισμού.

Η συζήτηση περατώνεται.

Η ψηφοφορία θα διεξαχθεί σήμερα, 18 Απριλίου, στις 11.30.

(Η συνεδρίαση διακόπτεται στις 10.50 και επαναλαμβάνεται στις 11.30)

VORSITZ: RAINER WIELAND
Vizepräsident

(1) βλ. Συνοπτικά Πρακτικά