Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-12-01-Speech-4-012"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051201.3.4-012"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, it was I who applauded, and I did so because I wholeheartedly agreed with what Mrs Thyssen said. First of all, let me pay tribute to the rapporteur, Mr Becsey, who has fought his way through this difficult subject matter and who has now become our VAT expert in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. We endorse his report and also what others have said about the VAT refund. It really is vital that this should be introduced more quickly and in a simpler way for companies that operate transnationally; otherwise the internal market in Europe is a farce.
The other report is to do with the oral question that we have tabled and the deadlines within which certain matters must be dealt with. I completely agree with Mrs Thyssen when she says that it is ridiculous that now, with only one month still to go, there is still uncertainty, particularly in the labour-intensive services sectors, who still do not know where they stand. The Commissioner is beyond reproach in this; it is the Council that is the legal body with responsibility for this and it cannot manage to lay down a regulation.
I stand here as one who speaks up for those labour-intensive services. Ideally, I would like to see them incorporated in Annex H, namely in the structural solution. I hope that our appeal here in this House will, in any event, be the last nudge needed to secure an agreement, and that time will be found for this to be debated next year. I, for one, am in favour of having this discussion on a much broader footing. I think that the whole debate about the shift from indirect to direct taxation, something which your Prime Minister, Mr Verhofstadt, has once again made very explicit reference, has everything to do with the way in which we deal with those VAT rates in a structural manner.
That is why I join Mr Becsey in saying that I am not in favour of formulating a maximum rate in this interim period and that I am all for making the possibility of using those low rates structural. If you want to bring about a shift from direct to indirect taxation, which can indeed be very advantageous, you also need to differentiate the rates. Low rates apply on social grounds, employment grounds, and in order to regulate and prevent moonlighting. Those are all elements that should be factored in. Higher rates should, perhaps, apply to certain luxury or environmentally-polluting factors.
I think that this structural discussion should really be held next year, and I hope that this Commissioner can give the initial impetus for this. I hope that the Member States will not each time hide behind the unanimity rule and the option they have to put up all kinds of blockades and to conclude underhand deals. I follow Mrs Berès in what she said earlier when I say that I do not consider this to be good governance or good legislation."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples