Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-02-19-Speech-4-011"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090219.3.4-011"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, today’s discussion – and the previous speakers have confirmed this – is taking place in very unusual circumstances, since we do not have a report for the plenary as would normally be the case. I want to make things quite clear: it was an ill-assorted majority that voted against the report in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs.
My group voted against this report, although we fully support the principle of extending the application of a reduced rate of VAT even beyond what the European Commission is proposing. That is because all of our amendments have been rejected by the socialists and the liberals.
We had made a great effort to compromise. We accepted all the socialist rapporteur’s proposals. She did not think it was worth making the slightest effort to accept any of our proposals. The regrettable, but at the same time inevitable, result of the vote should not, therefore, be surprising, Mrs van den Burg.
I would like to offer you some friendly advice to change your attitude in future because as the Romans used to say
['to err is human, but to persist is diabolical].
Let us, however, come back to the matter in hand. For the plenary my group decided to retable some amendments that came from the Members of the committee that is knowledgeable on the subject. These amendments are important, and it has been said very clearly, Mrs van den Burg, that no one can prevent a Member from proposing amendments to a document or to a resolution.
The most important of our amendments concerns applying reduced rates to alcoholic beverages in restaurants. It is not, Mr Schmidt, a way of encouraging alcoholism. That is ridiculous. If the Commission’s proposal were accepted, restaurant owners would have to apply two different rates of VAT. It is complicated and it is not justified. Long live red tape. Believe me, if you do not vote for Amendment 3, I know how to inform the whole of Europe’s catering sector – and it is large – that your position has prevented the application of a reduced VAT rate on all its services.
I proposed that food and all drink should be taxed at the same reduced rate, if it is applied. To me this is just common sense and I think that we could all support this proposal. Why complicate matters? Why look for public health issues where there is no reason for there to be any?
Madam President, my group supports the extension of reduced VAT rates and we urge our governments to take this issue forward. Our fellow citizens already had high expectations in this matter at this time of economic crisis and the daily catalogue of bad news. This measure supporting the food industry is becoming increasingly necessary, Madam President. We want Europe to be recognised for its flexibility; that would indeed be a positive sign."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples