Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-06-13-Speech-2-357"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000613.21.2-357"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, now that Finland has joined the European Union, she must apply the EU regulations regarding competition. These include regulations on the importation of beer. As representative of the ELDR Group, I wish to defend the abolition of competition distortion as well as the principle of free trade, which, however, must benefit the public.
I would approach the problem, however, from the angle of the principle of subsidiarity. For a very long time in Finland, there has been a successful social policy in force where the aim has been to restrict alcohol consumption. All the statistics relating to alcohol consumption speak in favour of continuing with this policy. On the other hand, I will admit that consumption is not evenly spread. In Finland there are groups of alcohol abusers, such as the young, for example. It is alcohol consumption among these groups that we aim to influence. One reason for keeping stringent restrictions on imports is, for example, the matter of public order.
An essential part of health policy has been high taxation and, at the same time, well-maintained border controls. Finland’s geographical position is very different from all the other EU countries. Beyond our frontiers are countries where prices are low. If, for example, the general EUR 175 tax-free import limit were applied on imports from these countries, permitted imports would double in terms of litres. That is why Finland needs an independent mechanism regarding what it itself perceives as reasonable import restrictions.
In this matter it is necessary to advance in stages towards lower taxation on alcohol and a gradual liberalisation of imports, but let us respect the conditions that now prevail in the Member State as it itself sees them. Finland believes it justifiable to have a two-year extension to the restriction on imports from non-member countries. We cannot therefore support the amendments that were reintroduced in plenary after having been voted down once in committee."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples