Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-15-Speech-4-117"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011115.5.4-117"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The Commission is exasperating us with poorly thought out and inappropriate proposals in the field of indirect taxation, specifically with regard to excise duty.
· The collapse of current balances;
· Uncertainties and lack of realism in the objectives proposed;
· Calling for differences in tax receipts instead of convergence of rates;
· The danger of destroying medium-sized manufacturers in a market dominated by huge multinationals.
Today we are hearing its proposals for tobacco.
We already know that the Commission is also cooking up a proposal to increase excise duties on alcohol and to abolish the zero rate for wine, which is also inappropriate and even counter-productive.
Like us, the Economic and Social Committee rejected the Commission proposal, with an overwhelming majority because it is an inappropriate tool which, instead of narrowing the gap between excise rates applied in Member States, is in danger of further widening the gap.
The supposed objective of achieving greater harmonisation would therefore, not be reached and the balanced compromise established under Luxembourg’s presidency in 1992 between the supporters of proportional taxation and those of a specific form of taxation would be seriously undermined.
This compromise was based on a balance in the sacrifices to make for the sake of harmonisation, to facilitate the entry into force of the single market in 1993. The implementation of this misguided proposal by the European Commission runs the risk of encouraging massive smuggling in the EU’s southern Member States and, following enlargement, in central Europe. There would be an increase in the price of cigarettes of between 200% and 500%, a further illustration of this proposal’s lack of realism.
Our rapporteur’s arguments, which I agree with, to reject the Commission proposal outright are convincing on more than one point. I quote:
· Technical mistakes in studies;
· Discrimination between countries;"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples