Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-12-Speech-3-073"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-03-12"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Vote2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030312.2.3-073"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-03-12-Speech-3-0742
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, ladies and gentlemen, many thanks for that welcome. This draft regulation on the legal framework within which Eurostat operates is intended to improve comparisons of Member States' gross domestic products by making them more complete and more reliable. As such it is one that we can all support. There are, though, two aspects of it to which I would now like to draw attention. The first thing is that the Council and the Commission are still in dispute about the deadline by which data on aggregate gross national income – please take note that it is no longer called the gross domestic product – has to be forwarded to Eurostat in Luxembourg. This used to be 30 September; the Commission proposed that it should be 15 September, and a majority on the Council had already decided in favour of 22 September. That seems rather like haggling. As rapporteur, I asked myself whether we should go along with this game, but we decided to leave well alone. To add to that, the Commission has attempted, by way of comitology – something that certain Members find intensely fascinating – to change the character of the former committee. We are not joining in this charade either. There is, though, another peculiarity to which I would like to draw your attention. One of the recitals states that the GNI data have to be complete, that is to say, they must include not only the data held by the tax authorities or other official bodies, but also those on undeclared activities. I was then curious enough to ask how the Member States measure such undeclared activities as prostitution, for example. It appears that there is a rule of thumb for this purpose. In some Member States, it comes to 1%, equal to agriculture's contribution to the GNI; in the candidate Member States, it is estimated at 2%. Work that out if you can. It also appears that various Member States are very wary about estimating such illegal activities as, for example, the trade in drugs, when returns have to be made to Eurostat. Why is this so? It is known that an ever-increasing share of the EU's own resources is dependent on the gross domestic product. It therefore follows that some Member States do not give the full figures, as then they would have to pay more. On the other hand, they then also have to pay in dribs and drabs, that is to say, by underestimating their GNI. Then, of course, they would have problems complying with the Maastricht criteria. I know that the President-in-Office of the Council has spoken for too long, but I wanted to keep you informed, just so that you know what you are about to vote on."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Applause)"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph