Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-19-Speech-5-045"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991119.3.5-045"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I am taking the floor at this point to express my support, and that of the Socialist Group, for the work and the conclusions regarding the proposals presented today to this Parliament, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, by my good friend and colleague Professor Manuel Medina, in the well-founded hope that this Assembly will fully approve the proposals in question.
The third solution is the one which Professor Medina proposes and which we understand that the Canary Islands requires and wants, the one which this Parliament will probably vote for in a few moments. Based on the legal considerations of the EC Treaty, we argue that the APIM be kept as it is for now, and that it be consolidated within the obligatory reform of Regulation (EEC) 1911/91. We hope that this Parliament is up to the job and does not disappoint our fellow citizens …
Of course our intention is not simply to support a colleague. In reality our position – now through this intervention and later through our vote – is that of Spaniards and Europeans, and perhaps even more as Spanish and European Socialists, who are expressing their solidarity with the Canary Islands and their men and women. I am speaking of a solidarity which the Canary Islands require in a specific and particular way, precisely because of the specific and particular characteristics of their geography and history.
Let it be clear therefore that what we want is to give a little more to the Canaries, to compensate for adverse conditions, and thereby prevent a situation where they have a little less than the other Europeans.
The rapporteur, Manuel Medina, has explained in a rigorous and full way the legal arguments which explain how the Canaries has been defended for centuries, within a Spanish context, by means of different mechanisms which allowed those distant islands to overcome the negative circumstances which I spoke of earlier, and, with the skill, tenacity and efforts of their men and women, firstly resist and then gradually build reasonably modern and prosperous societies.
We were aware of the problems of the Canary Islands when we negotiated the accession of our country to the European Community and the successive Treaties, up until Amsterdam, and the constant concern to always take that special situation into account was reflected in the special Protocol 2 of the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal, back in 1985, in Council Regulation (EEC) 1911/91, which approved the said Protocol, and in section 2 of article 299 of the EC Treaty, which describes the outermost regions of the Union, with special mention of the Canary Islands and lays down the very flexibility in the application of general rules in certain vulnerable cases which we are discussing today.
It was precisely Protocol 2, which I referred to earlier, which, applying traditional formulas to the new rules, established the so-called “APIM” (Tax on Production and Exports), a modest duty applied to certain products entering the Canary Islands, many of which originate from the Spanish Peninsular and others from other States.
At the moment there is a process under way which will lead to the negotiation between the Spanish Government and the Commission, with a view to amending the said Regulation (EEC) 1911/91, which specifically regulates the APIM in question. The concern which this amendment has caused in the Canary Islands – and which we are recognising here – has increased as a result of a certain lack of confidence in the ability of the government of my country to appreciate the true nature and gravity of this problem and in its desire to tackle that problem in the said negotiation with the Commission.
In reality there are only three alternatives. The first is the complete removal of the APIM, which would have very negative effects for the many small and medium-sized businesses on the islands which, although they make little profit from their production, survive thanks to the fact that similar products arriving from outside are taxed, and it is therefore still viable to continue producing them in the Canaries.
The second alternative is less harsh but ultimately just as harmful. It would consist of eliminating the APIM gradually until it disappears completely after a few years, perhaps maintaining them partially for a few products."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples