Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-06-Speech-4-110"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031106.6.4-110"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Although this report contains many positive ideas, I do have some difficulties with the excessively lengthy passages on environmental taxes. The ‘polluter pays’ principle is generally acknowledged, and has even been incorporated into the EC Treaty, but the introduction of an environmental tax on fuel is highly controversial and should be dealt with at national level, as closely as possible to the public, so that there can be proper public debate. I can only advise against introducing it through the European bodies. In many Member States, my own included, people have for the last few years heard about nothing other than tax increases planned or decided on by the EU. Let me only remind you of the debates on the excise duty on alcoholic beverages, the plans to impose VAT on postal services, the proposed abolition of the lower VAT rates, the introduction – as part of the energy package – of minimal taxation on fuel, and so on. If introduced, the environmental tax that is being called for would have a catastrophic effect on the EU’s image, especially at a time when various Member States have announced referendums on the adoption of the European Constitution. To introduce tax increases would be to play right into the hands of anti-EU populists and would be counter-productive in terms of our efforts to stimulate economic growth."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples