Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-06-13-Speech-2-361"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-06-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Imports of beer into Finland2
dcterms:Language	"fi"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000613.21.2-361"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-06-13-Speech-2-3622
lpv:speaker	lp:Eija-Riitta Korhola2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Suomen Kristillinen Liitto (1999-07-20--2001-05-30)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Latvia Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, Finland has had a period of transition to adapt regulations for imports of alcohol to EU levels. This is being done by 2004, according to the deadline fixed in respect of the Internal Market. In asking for extra time for harmonising exports from non-member countries, however, Finland has been keen to ensure that imports from the Internal Market, considered a priority, are harmonised in a controlled way. The European Court of Justice and the Commission accept this order of priorities, and I thus hope for understanding on the part of Parliament as well. In my opinion, the picture created in Mrs Lulling’s report of the situation in Finland is a false one. Commissioner, you can surely ascertain that from what we Finns have been saying here in our speeches. The essential problem regarding imports from non-member countries is that an EU-wide restriction on imports has been imposed on strong alcoholic beverages and wines among products liable to excise duty, but, for some reason or other, there is no such restriction on beer. Therefore, as regards the importation of beer, the general euro limit has to be observed, which is products to the value of EUR 175. At Russian prices, as we have heard, this means more than 200 litres of the best European beer. That is double what a citizen of the EU can bring in from another EU country. At what limit the importation of beer from non-member countries should be set is not as important as attending to the issue of imports from non-member countries according to a timetable only after the Internal Market has started functioning. The border between Finland and Russia is quite exceptional in the EU. I would point out that no other EU country faces such a wide price differential on its borders as Finland – and the problems resulting from this price differential will not be resolved at any level of excise duty. Recent information, for example from research carried out in France, shows that alcohol causes serious public health problems in all EU countries. I also understand that Sweden and France are planning an EU policy, when they hold the presidency, aiming at preventing health problems caused by alcohol throughout the EU. Knowing the high social costs of alcohol-related problems, the harmonisation of excise duty should preferably come about at the average rate for Europe, not its lowest. Excise duty is not fiscal in nature, simply a policy to provide revenue for the state, but clearly it is an instrument which will lead to healthier lifestyles, aided by a market economy."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph