Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-19-Speech-3-222"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000119.8.3-222"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, on behalf of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, I must express my surprise at this debate on the international movement of capital and its possible taxation which, although it does not mention it in the text, appears to be an attempt to revive, as the introduction has done, the issue of the tax proposed some years ago by Mr Tobin, which our Group opposed, clearly and totally, during the last legislature, with a series of arguments clearly and coherently expressed by our President, Mr Cox. I will have to repeat these arguments, modestly, in this intervention, because the same issue has arisen once again.
We do not agree with this type of tax because its application, in the event that it could happen, would not achieve the aims which Mr Tobin presented at the time and which the Left in this House wishes to revive.
Firstly, there is no evidence that the tax on international capital movements could reduce the dangers of volatility and instability in the international markets. On the contrary, since it is certain that not all countries would accept it, we would open the way to speculation and fraud and that really would create volatility, instability, insecurity, opacity and unfair competition in the field of financial services operating on an international level.
Furthermore, the idea of obtaining resources to apply them to the more economically needy countries presents such complexity, when we consider their application in practice, that it appears simply impossible.
This is a false debate whose aim is purely political, and has no basis or technical viability. Furthermore – since we are in this European Parliament – if we have still not managed the slightest agreement with regard to the package of fiscal measures proposed by the Commission within the European Union, how can we expect to achieve a fiscal agreement on an international level? I suppose that the first thing they say will be, ‘let us see whether you are capable of reaching a fiscal agreement within the Union’.
However, the Liberal Group has not wanted to close the door to a new analysis of this issue and, therefore, we have accepted a joint motion for a resolution proposing that a study be carried out on the possibility and suitability of imposing this tax on certain areas of international capital movements. I am sure that this study – if carried out objectively, with knowledge of the financial markets and their mechanisms on an international level – will show that it is neither suitable nor possible, not only in terms of its application, but also as a means of achieving the proposed objectives.
In itself, globalisation is positive. The economy has never grown so much nor favoured so many countries on a global level. This is due to progressive opening up and greater freedom in the international trade in goods and services and also a greater capacity for adequate movement of capital.
Any analysis of economic development in recent years, if objective, will show, through the figures, that they have no political colour or orientation.
As I have said, we are not opposed to such a study. We will support the motion for a resolution in support of this study, but we simply insist that, as this motion for a resolution points out, it is by means of liberalisation and opening up at an international level that we will achieve economic progress, both on the level of states and on a general level."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples