Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-10-21-Speech-4-218"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101021.19.4-218"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"−
We are in favour of this report because we cannot conceive of not safeguarding European entrepreneurs who choose to continue to produce in the EU, thereby guaranteeing jobs and wellbeing. The rules stipulating that the origin of a product must be indicated are completely in line with what the United States, Canada, Japan and India are already doing and with the full implementation of the rules on transparency and consumer protection, which are cited in many directives that have already been approved.
For example, for the purposes of the decision that we are about to take, I would cite the different but interesting case of the unfair competition of gold products that arrive from Japan: a 3.5% customs duty is applied to them, and once they arrive in Europe and are simply finished off, they are sold under the European trademark.
However, gold products exported from the EU to China have a 30% tax levied on them. The problem with this text is that only a few categories of goods are provided for in the current proposal for a regulation. Our group has tabled a series of amendments with a view to having other categories included immediately. We Italian Members are working on a text that would go a long way towards making origin marking mandatory."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples