Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-13-Speech-4-106"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-06-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Vote2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20020613.4.4-106"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-06-13-Speech-4-1072
lpv:speaker	lp:Astrid Lulling2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP-ED (1999-09-16--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; ECON (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Parti chrétien social (1999-09-16--2004-07-19)3 substitute; AGRI (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (2002-02-06--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, although I did not vote against the report on the arrangements concerning the AIEM tax applicable in the Canary Islands, that was because I did not want simply to follow the example of Commissioner Bolkestein and our rapporteur by accepting the entire ‘Spanish connection’ which has been set up in such a way as to totally violate the principles of the single market and the free movement of goods. I am in favour of adopting special measures for the peripheral regions under Article 299 of the Treaty. However, the tricks that the Spanish authorities are getting up to for certain products, in terms of incongruity, discrimination and distortion of competition, have nothing to do with protecting local production, although they would certainly ensure full employment for lawyers, because the victims, such as producers of rum, gin and vodka in Spain itself, will not take this lying down. What is more, it really is extraordinary that the Commissioner, who, when it comes to other dossiers, is so resolute about safeguarding the free movement of products within the single market, is willing to present a proposal as discriminatory as this, which is to apply retroactively and for a period of ten years, up to December 2011. I think that this is over the top. Moreover, this is all without any reference to the economic and social development of the Islands or to the promotion of local activities. I would like to warn the Commission and the Member States, who in the Council have given way to real blackmail by the presidency, against the dangerous precedent that they are in the process of setting. The Council would do better not to approve Article 1 of this decision in view of the Parliament’s opinion. This House would have been better advised to follow the opinion of its Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, which should ultimately have been responsible here."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph