After all, the Cecchini report in 1985 had already promised us growth and five million jobs.

It is possible that the Cecchini Report has overestimated some of these benefits.

The Cecchini report told too many lies.

The Cecchini Report has also been criticised because certain key factors are said to have been omitted.

The Cecchini Report estimates assume that all the necessary legislation will be approved and implemented by 1 January 1993.

The deceit of the Cecchini report, which promised us five million jobs and gave us twenty-five million unemployed.

Although the Cecchini Report provided some estimates of the likely changes in prices in the member states, there has not been much investigation of these issues.

Might I ask the Commissioner whether there will not be a Cecchini Report, because having some quantified targets always provides a measure of motivation?

The redistribution effects of creating the SEM are also largely ignored by the Cecchini Report.

The Cecchini Report established the main barriers which were to be removed by implementing Article 13 of the SEA.

The Cecchini Report finds evidence that many plants in Europe operate at less than MES.

The Cecchini Report reclassifies these barriers in order to estimate the benefits of removing these NTBs.

(EL) Madam President, before the Internal Market Programme of 1992 there was the Cecchini Report on the costs of non-Europe.

The case for the removing of NTBs leading to a fundamental reconstruction of the economy of the EC may have been overestimated by the Cecchini Report.

A study using engineering estimates of costs was made by Pratten for the Cecchini Report, and this finds evidence of cost advantages from increasing output levels in some industries (see Table 2.4).

The publication of a study (Commission 1990a) has extended the Cecchini Report by investigating the effects of the creation of the SEM on specific industries in the member states.

The Cecchini Report does not have much to say on this issue, but the implication of such a policy is that monetary policies would need to be co-ordinated to prevent the growth of monetary instability.

The neglect of the external effects of creating the SEM is a pronounced feature not only of the Cecchini Report, but also of most of the literature on the SEM.

The Cecchini Report did highlight potential benefits from co-ordinated expansion of aggregate demand, but this was rather vague and was not envisaged at the kind of level being advocated by the supporters of such Keynesian policies.

From the 1985 White Paper through to the 1988 Cecchini Report, it is evident that the projected benefits resulting from the SEM programme are expected to result to a large extent from the exploitation of potential scale economies.

In spite of this the Cecchini Report does use MES calculations to estimate the benefits of removing NTBs, and these scale benefits form a very large part of the benefits of creating the SEM.

That positive role cannot be called into doubt given the developments which have fallen below the predictions in the Cecchini report, which were excessively optimistic, but back then it was impossible to predict the fall of the Berlin Wall and the recession of the early 1990s.

The Cecchini report, commissioned by the EC Commission in 1988, entitled 'The Cost of Non-Europe' estimated that the total potential savings to the Community as a whole from the completion of the single market at 1988 prices was about 5% of the Community's gross domestic product.