Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-06-13-Speech-3-265"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010613.10.3-265"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, if we had held this debate on the oil supply of the European Union six months ago, far more attention would probably have been paid to it and a host of journalists would have been here so that they could report on it the following day. I doubt if this will be the case today because things have calmed down somewhat since.
What gives me food for thought is that OPEC stands together with the USA on climate policy. In other words, they are a partner in the US alliance, which could be dangerous when it comes to climate policy. I really would like to be able to discuss climate policy with OPEC. I think that we could well broker a compromise here.
Surprisingly, back then, when oil prices were indeed rising, albeit not so dramatically, the streets were full of protesters and if a country had held elections, the government would probably have had terrible trouble getting re-elected; even though there is nothing they can do about it, psychologically it makes a huge difference. People were confused and many took to the streets in anger.
What exactly is my point here? My point is that oil policy can have an extraordinary effect on public opinion in our countries and we must be take care when talking about oil. Obviously, people are getting used to higher prices. The price of oil has since risen to 30 dollars a barrel, yet there is no revolt – at one time, even that rise would have constituted a danger.
What I am trying to say here is that this is not an insignificant issue and we should make an effort to help stabilise prices – knowing full well that prices will, of course, tend to go up before they go down over the next few years, due to the shortage of oil and for ecological reasons, and that abrupt changes are dangerous.
The Commission published a communication back then, on which I should now like to congratulate it. I think it is an exceptionally helpful and intelligent communication and I think the most important message – and it is this message which I also want to get across in my report – is that we need proper relations with OPEC. We need dialogue with OPEC and, more importantly, we need the European Union to speak with one voice in this dialogue. Not with fifteen, with one. I am pleased to pay you the compliment, Commissioner, but I would have said it anyway: it must be the Commissioner who speaks for the European Union.
I can imagine that the band which OPEC is aiming for will be pegged at between about 22 and 28 dollars a barrel. Even 30 dollars would not be a catastrophe, even if, because of inflation, we would, of course, be more comfortable with 25 rather than 30 dollars.
So where are the bones of contention, including here in Parliament? First, there is the question of tax harmonisation, of the harmonisation of duty on mineral oils. I am an ardent advocate of this sort of harmonisation, although I know that many of my fellow members take a different tack, believing that tax policy should be subject to competition. However, I think it is absolutely essential and fair, in the interests of truck drivers and haulage companies in competition with each other, that we harmonise competitive conditions.
The second divisive issue that is causing problems is the use of stocks. Now I too know that these stocks, which we have estimated at 90 days, are, of course, minute compared with the size of the oil fields underground and that releasing these stocks will have little impact on the cost of energy. I am not so naive as to have overlooked this. However, I believe that it makes sense, psychologically, to release them in a crisis, but I admit that we could argue the point.
The third point we need to discuss – and I am being very cautious here – is the use of fiscal instruments in the event of a crisis. If you object that this is highly adventurous, then I would remind you that the French government granted tax relief back then, contrary to European directives, and has kept it in place to this day. In other words, we have to deal with a real situation here, which we cannot allow to put us under pressure."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples