Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-09-24-Speech-3-430"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080924.35.3-430"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"We are discussing new and more transparent rules in the financial services sector at a time when we are going through one of the biggest crises in this sector. The current situation shows that we cannot let things run their own course and there is a need for regulation. ‘Regulation’ does not mean bureaucracy – certainly not excessive bureaucracy – but assurance that things are being done in the best possible way, and not by means of formulas and papers that lead nowhere. When my fellow Members and I prepared this report we had two priorities. Firstly, to ensure that any changes that take place do not have negative repercussions for the consumer.
In other words, there should be no additional burdens on the consumer, and that is why we are saying that the possibility of introducing VAT on financial services should apply only to transactions between one business and another and should therefore be recoverable. At no stage should our text propose that VAT on a financial service that is not taxable be passed on to an individual – that is, the consumer. This is stated clearly and directly in the proposed text, despite possible reservations on the part of other institutions. Some people criticise the fact that the industry will save on expenses and that Member States’ income may be reduced – an interesting argument which, however, quite frankly I think comes most of the time from those with a restricted view of the economy and fiscal policy. Firstly, in a competitive sector like that of financial services and in a system where you have safeguards against agreements between companies, any expenses not incurred by companies should either be passed on as benefits to the consumer or else be used to compensate for other existent expenses. Secondly, as Europe we should understand once and for all that we are not competing alone on the market; we have to ensure that the systems used by other Member States – and by the European Union as a whole – are attractive to serious companies wishing to enter the market and establish themselves as true European operators. Facilitating the systems is a way of offering an incentive in this sector, generating market potential and creating work, productive work.
Through this report we are helping to create a European market by removing obstacles. We are doing what has been talked about for many years; we are fulfilling one of the aims of the action plan in this sector. We are proving that we can be proactive, solve problems and act on new ideas. Perhaps we may disagree on technicalities, perhaps some may say that we can use one system and not another, but I believe that this Parliament must give an indication that this is our ultimate aim. Obviously there are certain points on which we are not all agreed, myself included: for example, broadening the definitions. I believe that it would have been better if the committee had followed my recommendations on this, which were always either to keep to the Commission’s text, or else to further restrict the definitions. In spite of this, we should also note that the committee chose to proceed strategically, and so this report was approved with just one vote against. I await the reactions of my friends as well as those of the Commission."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples