Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-14-Speech-2-069"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020514.7.2-069"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, on behalf of my group, I would also like to thank our esteemed fellow Member, Mr Bruno Trentin, and to congratulate him not only on his personal qualities, but also because I believe that the report adopted last night by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs contains a strong political message.
The message is that, if Parliament adopts this report, it will be rejecting the ‘wait-and-see’ strategy favoured by the Member States’ governments and is calling for a stronger qualitative growth. This message is conveyed by highlighting the fact that, in the triangle that economists know well, in other words that formed by the volume of public debt, the volume of public revenue and the volume of public expenditure – whether this is current expenditure or, more importantly, investment expenditure referred to in this report – we must also take into account the level of public expenditure needed to achieve the objectives defined at Lisbon and also at Gothenburg. And one does not need to be a genius to realise that this message runs counter to widely held views. To be convinced of this, one merely has to watch the election broadcasts by the main political parties, which all place the emphasis on reducing public revenue and fail to specify which areas of public spending should therefore be decreased accordingly.
Bearing in mind, therefore, the increasing tax competition between the Member States, I think that Amendment No 7 is an absolutely crucial amendment, because it warns against the pressure that public expenditure is under. Besides the tax aspects which we do not think are covered sufficiently in the report, this is another reason why we feel that Amendment No 8 is an absolute minimum in terms of corporate income tax and the implementation of the conclusions of the Primarolo report. But we must also – the Commissioner is well aware of this – move forward with environmental taxation and taxation on revenue arising from capital, which are all areas where the debate is stalling.
Lastly, Commissioner, as far as the Stability and Growth Pact is concerned, my group will not vote in favour of the Marinos report, because I think that there is a contradiction, contrary to what other speakers have said, between the Trentin report and the Marinos report. The Marinos report calls for the strict observance of the stability programmes. I personally believe that, in the interest of citizens, it is unwise to refuse to launch a debate on the Stability and Growth Pact. It is unwise to seek to accomplish, at any cost and within strict timetables, budgetary balances: the level of public debt of the Member States is more important than simply complying strictly with budgetary balances. I think that there is a connection to be made between the rise of extreme right groups in Europe and the fact that the States no longer know how to respond to the basic needs of their citizens, or in any case these needs are not being properly satisfied. We need public funding that is sufficient to meet these needs."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples