Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-02-05-Speech-2-164"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020205.9.2-164"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – I hope there will be further occasions, in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, for example, to go more into the detail. What seems to me links the first two speeches is a concern that indeed would be there if a location clause could exist. One distinctive feature of today's Commission decision on the draft regulation is that the location clause is not there at any percentage level. This should go a long way towards alleviating those concerns.
As regards making sure that prices converge, this is one of the objectives of the overall proposal. As you know, we keep regular track of the convergence or non-convergence of prices. We produce a report twice a year on the price of different models in the different Member States. That will be a powerful means of gauging the consequences, among other things, of this new regulation.
We have resisted the temptation to become price regulators and to link specific competition arrangements for distribution to the size of the price differentials. It is not for us to say that this price differential is acceptable, but that this plus one is not. We are working on the roots of the phenomena, so that price convergence should develop.
As for the Anglo-Dutch example, my answer briefly is that both modalities would be allowed, namely the setting up of dealers' outlets in the other countries and unrestricted trade without changing the location of the dealers."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples