Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-04-06-Speech-3-047-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110406.6.3-047-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, I think that many of my fellow Members will have remembered that the background to this package for the Single Market comes from the Monti report, and the Monti report recommended a considerable compromise between those who advocate more competition, if you like, and those who advocate giving more weight to social, environmental and tax-related aspects.
I believe that, here in Parliament – and as long as the texts are not unpicked in the votes we shall be having in plenary in a few hours – we have succeeded in finding this compromise, including in the 14 proposals that emerge from the three reports as a whole. I also know that you are having discussions, in the College of Commissioners, to determine which central themes you will be retaining, and we shall clearly be paying great attention to whether this balance found within Parliament and desired by Mr Monti is taken up and extended to the 12 central project themes to which you have referred.
I would like to highlight three items which seem particularly important to me, further to what Mrs Turunen said a little while ago on behalf of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance. The first aspect concerns competition. The issue of the Single Market is to ascertain where we can focus competition. Do we focus competition on innovation, on products or do we focus competition on the rules, through environmental dumping or social dumping? I believe we have indeed struck a balance here in Parliament – and I hope you can carry it over into the Commission – which is to say ‘yes’ to more competition through innovation, ‘yes’ to more capital investment, but ‘yes’ also to a social clause, ‘yes’ to environmental standards that ensure that competition does not lead to regulatory dumping. Those are the two aspects that I believe are fundamental to our compromise.
The second item that I would like to highlight concerns the tax-related aspects. When you proposed the consolidated corporate tax base for multinational companies in your first version of the Single Market Act, it was not an optional proposal: in other words, all companies had to be subject to this consolidated tax base. In the proposal put out by the Commission 10 days or so ago, it is an optional measure: in other words, instead of building up an aspect of the Single Market, the Commission is tearing one down. You will be adding a new system, you will be adding a layer of complexity, you will be adding regulatory arbitrage instead of creating tax harmonisation. The proposal tabled by the Commission a fortnight ago runs totally counter to what we in Parliament want and to what you had proposed.
The last point I want to highlight very quickly is the notion of reciprocity, in exactly the same terms as you have done. The Single Market accounts for 500 million people; it is an economic entity, but it is also a political entity which must afford us more influence in shaping globalisation."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples