Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-06-Speech-4-169"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000706.6.4-169"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
". – (
) I was unable to vote in favour of the compromise resolution, mainly because the paragraph on taxation is a little too sparse and casts a biased judgement on what was really decided in Feira.
Parliament should rather have noted, with satisfaction, of course, the determination of the Heads of State and Government to reach an integral agreement on the taxation package as a whole (taxation of savings income, business taxation, interest and royalties) at the end of 2002 at the latest. We should have confirmed the need to preserve the competitiveness of European financial markets by the simultaneous adoption of equivalent measures in key third countries and identical measures in associated or dependent territories. We should also have asked to receive the reports that the Commission should present at regular intervals on the application of information exchange systems and systems for taxation at source from savings, as well as the report on the basis of which the adoption and implementation of the directive are to be decided. I would remind you that this was not the case.
I know that opinion on the tax compromise that we just managed to negotiate in Feira is divided. This is reflected in all the European press. I cannot help but name a few headlines from French language papers, ‘Delaying compromise on savings tax’, ‘Doubts on Feira tax compromise’, ‘Superficial agreement, fundamental disagreement’, ‘lame agreement’, ‘taxation at source, coexistence, nothing at all?’ or from the German language papers, ‘Brown the Scot boosts London as a financial centre. London leads the way in the EU tax battle’, ‘Swiss banks see no need for action’, ‘all financial centres must cooperate to do away with banking secrecy’.
The observation in the
of 24 June is also telling, ‘We are more likely to see the Matterhorn crumble than the Swiss electorate release bank staff from their confidentiality obligations and the Bern Finance Minister become the tax collector for Brussels.’
In this context, the headline in the
of 24 June, which accurately notes that ‘without sufficient guarantees, Luxembourg will block the taxation directive’ and that ‘the exchange of information should also be applied by competing markets’, reflects what was really decided in Feira.
The fact that our resolution complains about the Feira timetable illustrates the ignorance or delusion of the authors of this passage, whom I would like to remind of what the Luxembourg Prime Minister specified in Feira on this subject, that is, that with regard to taxation of savings ‘there are still around fifty technical matters which have never been discussed by the Commission’.
In this context, complaining that the timetable did not reflect the urgency of the problem is irresponsibly unrealistic."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Basler Zeitung"1
"FR"1
"Écho"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples