Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-07-05-Speech-4-075"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010705.4.4-075"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
My group, like many Members of this House as well as various experts, takes the view that the EU resources budgeted in the financial perspectives for 2000-2006 are insufficient, especially in view of the enlargement of the EU and the work which needs to be done to stabilise the situation in the Balkans, solve the problems of unemployment and stabilise social systems, to name but a few. There is therefore good cause to put the question of additional sources of revenue for the European Union on the agenda.
Mrs Haug proposes in her report to abolish the previous system of transfers from Member States and to modify the own resources system so that the European Union can achieve financial autonomy. She calls for a European tax to be introduced as a direct revenue.
My group cannot subscribe to this approach.
The system of transferring a proportion of gross national product used in the past is based on a principle which is conducive to economic and social cohesion in the Union – the solidarity principle. To abolish this principle is to rob the European Union of its basis and, for us, this is unacceptable.
We take a constructive view of the idea of supplementing the present system of financing the EU with further sources of revenue in the form of European taxes which do not minimise taxes in the Member States of the European Union. Our thoughts turn in this context, for example, to the introduction of a Tobin tax to cream off profits from financial transactions or the introduction of a pan-European CO2 tax on companies, which would also help us to implement a forward-looking environmental policy by applying pressure for more environmentally-friendly ways of generating energy and helping to safeguard the Kyoto agreement.
We also take the view that the present financial regulation should be amended so that resources not called up by the Member States stay in the European budget, rather than being channelled back to the Member States. At the same time, we need to apply stricter budgetary discipline; for example, commitment appropriations not disbursed because they have not been called up by the recipient, should lapse after no more than 3 years, meaning that the allocation notice will need to be altered.
That is why my group rejects this report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples