Euroopa Majandus- ja Sotsiaalkomitee
The EESC is fully supportive of the revised directive and it finds much in the regulation which it can support. The EESC has a major concern about the applicability of the regulation to SMEs and it recommends that the more radical proposals be revised.
The opinion deals with European Venture Capital sector, which is closely linked to Europe's global competitiveness. The growth of this sector is an objective of the overall Europe 2020 Strategy and also one of the key priorities of the SME action plan. The EESC welcomes the regulation but draws attention to several limitations, which may weaken the anticipated impact.
The proposal for an EU financial transaction tax seeks to change the short term oriented behaviour of financial actors whilst at the same time providing an own resource to the budget of the European Union that could considerably reduce the contributions by Member States based on their gross national income (GNI). The second initiative is in line with the treaties and wants the EU- budged be to a higher extent be financed by own resources. This would also put an end to the ongoing "juste retour" discussions that jeopardises the European project. The EESC welcomes these two Commission initiatives.
The Committee supports the Commission proposal to improve the regulation of rating agencies in order to further eradicate major shortcomings in transparency, independence, conflict of interest, and the quality of procedures used in making ratings. The dependence on these ratings should also be reduced, according to the Committee. Insider trading and market abuse damage confidence in the integrity of the markets, which is an essential prerequisite for a functional capital market. The EESC welcomes the fact that the Commission, with a new proposal, is responding to changing market conditions and is seeking to update the framework created by the market abuse directive.
..."Meanwhile, the financial and economic crisis has changed into a sovereign debt crisis because of the daily speculation against the euro, which has shifted its focus and targeted the debt of a number of European countries. The only reason for this is that the economic and political instruments to protect the euro are piecemeal, totally inadequate and, until a year ago, downright non-existent. These are the paradoxes that come from having a single monetary policy and 17 debt policies, 17 budget policies, 17 (or rather 27) economic and industrial policies, and so many voices, often contradictory, having their say and offering recipes for resolving the crisis. This is why there must be a commitment to redouble and continue the efforts made recently by the EU. It is useful, therefore, to draw up a few proposals, ..."