Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-03-14-Speech-2-139"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060314.21.2-139"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"This report, which exists outside the legislative procedure, deals with an important subject. We should, however, have liked to have formulated the problems relating to this issue differently.
We believe that the relocation of companies to third countries outside the EU is something in which we cannot interfere. It is, as a rule, market considerations that should determine where in the world companies are finally located. In this context, EU Member States can make efforts to compete when it comes, for example, to offering knowledge, skills and stability.
Where the relocation of companies within the EU is concerned, we must attend to the problem arising from the fact that individual Member States supplement the EU’s structural aid in the form of discriminatory tax relief and state subsidies. This happened in 2002 when the tyre factory in Gislaved was closed down and the company concerned, Continental, instead invested in a tyre factory in northern Portugal. That something like that can happen in the EU’s internal market is, in our view, a major problem.
In his explanatory statement, the rapporteur also states that a European Relocation Observatory could be set up within the EU. Instead of establishing a new monitoring body, we should make it the job of the Commission to monitor closures as a result of restructuring and discriminatory tax systems.
We therefore choose to vote against the report. We believe the matter to be important in principle, but we should have liked to have seen a resolution with a different approach to this important issue."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples