Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-24-Speech-2-194"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001024.6.2-194"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"No, I shall try not to give you too academic an answer, but you put me in a difficult position in asking me these questions because we could easily spend more than one evening answering, and in any case we shall no doubt be overrunning the allotted hour with the questions that are coming up. This matter raises questions of the objectives to be pursued, and questions of philosophy, of convictions and of analysis. Indeed everyone applies their own convictions and their own analysis in expressing their views on this subject.
I should just like to say, once again, speaking on behalf of the Council, that the Council is perfectly aware of topical events and the importance of these issues. The creation of a Tobin tax is an attractive option, one championed by many Members on both the left and right wing, by a variety of political and non-political organisations, non-governmental organisations, university groups. I shall therefore beware of giving a definitive answer to this difficult question.
I should just like to stress some of the practical problems which may give rise to debate, since this is the Council’s position. Firstly, I think everyone recognises that this tax, known as Tobin tax could operate properly only if applied at world level. It must be noted, however, that while it may be possible to seek a consensus within the European Union, no such consensus exists within G7, especially within the OECD, regarding levying a tax on exchange transactions. We are even aware, and this is an economic line of reasoning, that if there were a broad consensus, then a limited number of financial places would have a real interest in adopting an uncooperative attitude and refusing to apply the tax on transactions within their territory.
The question that I must ask those who advocate the Tobin tax, therefore, is exactly how we can offset that risk that would exist that speculative activities would shift location to tax havens, since this is a phenomenon which must be avoided if such a tax were to be adopted.
I should also like to have answers to the question of what influence it would have on the volatility of the exchange markets, particularly what would be the effect of a tax of 0.1 per thousand on speculators expecting devaluation in the order of 20 to 50%. There would, besides, be a risk of this tax being bypassed due to the high level of innovative performance in the modern financial world. The real question I have, then, does not concern the objectives of the Tobin tax, i.e. regulation of the exchange markets, making these markets more ethical by using them to fund development, but rather on our ability to ensure that these mechanisms are effective. Once again, this does not indicate my opposition in principle to the idea, as I am not opposed to it, certainly on a personal basis.
At the recent meetings in Prague, and at the meetings of the G7 and the International Monetary and Financial Committee (IMFC), in its capacity as Presidency of the European Union, France proposed focuses for reform intended to provide a response to the concerns behind the, now old, proposal of establishing a Tobin-type tax. The communiqués of the G7, the IMFC and the statements of the IMF Director-General, Mr Köhler, moreover reflect the sympathies that exist in relation to the policy guidelines promoted by France, particularly as regards ordered financial liberalisation and combating money laundering. This fight, which is one of the priorities of the French Presidency, was expressed at both the Justice and Home Affairs Council and the Ecofin Council, and recently in a combined meeting of these two Councils.
I am aware that I am unable to respond fully right now to the question asked. I suppose you expect the Council to simply say yes. I think the question is a little bit too complex to give a simple yes or no answer, because while we may approve of the principles, there is still the outstanding matter of the practical arrangements, not to mention the existence of a consensus between the 15 Member States."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples