Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-17-Speech-1-141"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-11-17"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Excise duties on petrol and commercial diesel fuel2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20031117.9.1-141"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-11-17-Speech-1-1422
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	"Madam President the Commission has chosen an inopportune time to put before us a complex and completely superfluous proposal for special rules applicable to the taxation of diesel fuel. Over and above that, it seeks to completely harmonise duties on diesel for commercial purposes by 2010, which would end up amounting, for most Member States, to a tax increase and therefore an increase in the price of diesel. It is, moreover, proposed – without considering the devastating effects on diesel technology – to raise the tax rate on diesel to the level of that on unleaded petrol. As our rapporteur has already described, that is completely absurd. Faced with the Commission’s regrettably uncompromising attitude towards the amendments proposed in a spirit of goodwill by our rapporteur Mrs Kauppi, the members of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, of whom I am one, voted by a massive majority – of twenty-three votes and two abstentions – to reject the Commission proposal in its entirety, and it did so for the many good reasons to which reference has already been made. The result of the Commission proposal would be a complicated system of rebates, one that would be bureaucratic, expensive and practically unworkable. It would leave us wide open to further tax fraud, with which we are already familiar in the context of VAT, and I personally agree with what our rapporteur has already said, namely that healthy fiscal competition is desirable and helpful in terms of stimulating economic growth; I certainly do not believe that it distorts competition in the internal market. What is the point of imposing even higher taxes on our businesses at a time when the economic environment has for some years been characterised by stagnation and unemployment? Such a thing is absurd, and I hope that the Commission will listen to our rapporteur and will put before us a complete and properly thought-out package to coordinate, among other things, the tax treatment of fuel and charges for the use of infrastructures."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph