Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-06-13-Speech-2-359"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000613.21.2-359"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Finland is prepared to increase imports of beer from the internal market. The derogation has been restricted in terms of time, and I thus support the Commission’s line here. Finland’s alcohol policy has been a valid one, and we see evidence of this that goes unchallenged anywhere in the world. Our problem is the enormous difference in taxation. Hardly anywhere else does such a huge difference exist as is the case on the eastern border of our country. The reason is obvious if you think about it for a moment. A whole state collapsed over there and, at the same time, the price of vodka and beer likewise collapsed. That is what happened over there, and we will not get carried away in the flood, whatever you tell us. The cost of alcohol fell. Besides, they concoct alcoholic beverages over there by mixing tap water and home-made spirits. That makes for a pretty powerful brew. You can buy that virtually for the price of the bottle alone. What production could be so cheap that you could compete with that? Besides, who will be bothered by this restriction on imports from the east? It will not bother anyone, at least not the EU.
It is being said here that taxation cannot reduce the consumption of alcohol. What sort of experience have you had in this regard? Because we do have experience of it. The first thing that the poor cut back on if prices rise is alcohol consumption. There is research data on that. Then you say that education helps. I happen to come from a region where such education has been provided. What happened? Vodka continues to be drunk as before, and on top of that there is wine. In other words, total consumption is increasing. And we still have an additional problem. We have high taxation, which I used to be in favour of. If private citizens are allowed to bring in more foreign beer, tax revenue will fall. Then we would be obligated to lower taxation in our own country with a consequent decrease in tax revenue, but in either case the consumption of alcohol will increase. In other words, there is quite a significant double-edged problem.
I regard a gradual switch as being the correct approach and one where consideration is given to our country’s levels of taxation. Excise duty on beer is very high in our country but, ladies and gentlemen, what we cannot eliminate is the price gap that exists between us and our neighbour to the east. Our resources are insufficient for that. This gap is so great that, as a result – as Mr Pesälä said – our special position is quite important for us. And if it is removed, I will just say that our roads to the east will be soaked in vodka if all import restrictions are lifted. That is the issue here."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples