Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-18-Speech-2-095"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031118.3.2-095"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
I voted in favour of the rapporteur’s opinion, which mirrors that of the specialised parliamentary committee, thereby ensuring that the Commission proposal was rejected. I believe that this proposal, which the Commission justifies by saying that the environment must be respected and that unfair competition in the internal market must be combated, leaves much to be desired in terms of its effectiveness and could have damaging repercussions for the current and particularly for the new Member States.
We must look more closely at the idea of establishing two categories of tax on petrol and at the guarantee that the tax applicable to private vehicles – fuel for non-commercial purposes – will also be rapidly applied to the tax on unleaded petrol in order to take account of the repercussions that these measures will have for the industrial sectors in question.
Whilst I am aware that there are cases of ‘gasoline tourism’, I believe that the scale of this problem does not justify total harmonisation. Tax competition could even be beneficial, since standardisation would, in most cases, lead to higher excise duties.
I come from one of the Union’s outermost Member States, and so I can only hope that geography is taken into consideration in future proposals. Portuguese truckers are actually unlikely to become involved in ‘gasoline tourism’ in the same way that German or Belgian truckers allegedly are."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples