Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-03-Speech-3-168"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991103.12.3-168"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we all know that in the world of politics – I am sorry to say this – politicians always find it more attractive to come up with new ideas and at least launch their initial implementation than to complete and improve on existing, tried and tested concepts that do not attract so much media attention! I believe, therefore, that we should be all the more grateful to the Commission for not treating the internal market like an old hat that just has to have a few dents knocked out now and again, but rather as a project that constantly requires new political initiatives.
With this in mind, I welcome the Commission communication on the European internal market which we have before us. I also consider that the four strategic objectives have been very well chosen and the right method has been adopted for evaluating and monitoring them.
Nevertheless, I think that I can allow myself a few constructive criticisms. One of these relates to the structure of this communication. I must confess, even though I am by no means a totally inexperienced Member now, that the complexity of this communication, with its strategic objectives, operational objectives, target projects, legislative and non-legislative measures, makes it really hard to follow and to grasp what the Commission is trying to convey to us. I hope that the European citizens whom the whole thing is ultimately intended to help can make more sense of it.
I also think that the Commission is in places too polite when it comes to identifying obstacles standing in the way of the internal market today. It seems to me that the Member States’ responsibility should be spelt out more clearly.
The communication also fails to address the system under which the European Parliament is tied in with the procedures and the tight time framework of the so-called annual cycle, to ensure that Parliament’s rights are fully respected. In this case it seems that the schedule is dictated more by the Council’s timetable. I also hope that the procedure under which we have had to consider this particular communication here in Parliament is not to be a model for future procedure. I say that, Mr Lehne, because it is precisely on account of this procedure that we have not had an opportunity to discuss amendments in committee, and that we have had to follow a procedure not at all typical of this House.
I believe that we should pay more attention to the fact that the internal market and other EU policies have, to some extent, led to developments which the public regard as absurd or off-putting. Some product components are nowadays transported thousands of kilometres across Europe, only for some of them then to be returned to their country of origin. Not only are significant transport costs incurred, but there is something wrong about this whole system, for example with the export refund system or the marking of regional origin system.
If, in this day and age, the very same pesticide attracts 20% value added tax in one Member State and just 3% in another, whilst fully complying with the sixth directive on value added tax, something is obviously wrong! We should not wait for the great day of fiscal harmonisation to dawn, we should do something about this with all haste. I am presenting this as evidence that we urgently need a new strategy for the internal market."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples