Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-03-28-Speech-3-215"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech⁶
dcterms:Date	"2007-03-28"^^xsd:date⁶
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Viitorul resurselor proprii ale Uniunii Europene (dezbatere)⁶
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language⁶
lpv:document identification number	"en.20070328.17.3-215"⁶
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2007-03-28-Speech-3-216⁶
lpv:speaker	lp:Richard Corbett⁶
lpv:spoken text	"Whilst I welcome the efforts that have gone into some early blue-sky thinking on the future sources of revenue of the European Union, and whilst I appreciate the explicit link made to the need to reform in parallel the expenditure side, I have my doubts about some aspects of this report. There is still too much focus on the one issue of the British rebate without recognising that this is not itself an anomaly but is the correction to an anomaly. There is also a strong implication in the report that the GNI-based resource is not really an ‘own resource’ of the Union, as it is not a tax on individuals but on Member States and is therefore less visible to citizens. Yet it is, legally, a resource due to the Union. Although it is less visible, it is, on the other hand, more equitable than many of the other suggested sources of revenue as it is tied to the level of prosperity in Member States. It is also a more stable source of revenue than some of the others that have been suggested. It should be kept!"@en⁴
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; CONT (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)²³ member; PES (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)²³ member; Delegation for relations with Japan (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)²³ substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of the Andean Community (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)²³ unknown; Labour Party (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)²³ substitute; BUDG (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)²³ member; AFCO (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)²³
lpv:translated text	"Whilst I welcome the efforts that have gone into some early blue-sky thinking on the future sources of revenue of the European Union, and whilst I appreciate the explicit link made to the need to reform in parallel the expenditure side, I have my doubts about some aspects of this report. There is still too much focus on the one issue of the British rebate without recognising that this is not itself an anomaly but is the correction to an anomaly. There is also a strong implication in the report that the GNI-based resource is not really an ‘own resource’ of the Union, as it is not a tax on individuals but on Member States and is therefore less visible to citizens. Yet it is, legally, a resource due to the Union. Although it is less visible, it is, on the other hand, more equitable than many of the other suggested sources of revenue as it is tied to the level of prosperity in Member States. It is also a more stable source of revenue than some of the others that have been suggested. It should be kept!"@cs¹ "Selv om jeg glæder mig over, at man i en tidlig fase har gennemført en brainstorming om EU's fremtidige egne indtægter, og selv om jeg værdsætter, at dette spørgsmål er blevet udtrykkeligt sammenkædet med behovet for at indføre parallelle reformer på udgiftssiden, er jeg betænkelig ved visse sider af denne betænkning. Der er stadig for stor fokus på den britiske rabatordning, og det anerkendes ikke, at denne ordning ikke er en skævhed i sig selv, men en korrektion af en skævhed. Det antydes også stærkt i betænkningen, at de BNI-baserede indtægter ikke er egentlige "egne indtægter" for EU, da de ikke udgør en beskatning af enkeltpersoner, men af medlemsstater, og således er mindre synlige for borgerne. Der er imidlertid tale om indtægter, der tilfalder EU. Selv om disse indtægter er mindre synlige, er de på den anden side mere retfærdige end mange af de andre foreslåede indtægtskilder, da de er knyttet til medlemsstaternes velstandsniveau. Disse indtægter er også mere stabile end visse af de andre indtægtskilder, der er blevet foreslået. Vi bør fastholde denne indtægtskilde!"@da² ". Ich begrüße zwar den Tatendrang, der ins Blaue hinein in Überlegungen zu den künftigen Einnahmequellen der Europäischen Union gesteckt wurde, und weiß auch den ausdrücklichen Verweis auf die Notwendigkeit gleichzeitiger Reformen auf der Ausgabenseite zu schätzen, habe jedoch meine Zweifel, was einige Aspekte dieses Berichts angeht. Es wird ein zu starkes Augenmerk auf die eine Frage des britischen Ausgleichs gelegt, ohne anzuerkennen, dass dies keine Anomalie, sondern die Korrektur einer Anomalie darstellt. Der Bericht lässt außerdem deutlich erkennen, dass die BNE-basierten Mittel nicht wirklich „Eigenmittel“ der Union darstellen, da hierbei keine Personen, sondern Mitgliedstaaten besteuert werden, was dadurch für die Bürger weniger sichtbar ist. Trotzdem sind es rechtlich gesehen Mittel, die der Union zustehen. Auch wenn diese Quelle weniger sichtbar ist, ist sie andererseits fairer als viele andere vorgeschlagene Einnahmequellen, da sie an das Wohlstandsniveau der Mitgliedstaaten gekoppelt ist. Auch ist es eine stabilere Quelle als manche andere, die vorgeschlagen wurden. Wir sollten an ihr festhalten!"@de⁹ ". Παρότι επικροτώ τις προσπάθειες που καταβλήθηκαν για ορισμένους πρόωρους προβληματισμούς σχετικά με τις μελλοντικές πηγές εσόδων της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, και ενώ εκτιμώ τη ρητή συσχέτιση με την ανάγκη παράλληλης μεταρρύθμισης του τομέα των δαπανών, διατηρώ αμφιβολίες για ορισμένες πτυχές της έκθεσης. Εξακολουθεί να παρατηρείται υπερβολική εστίαση στο επιμέρους ζήτημα της βρετανικής διόρθωσης χωρίς να αναγνωρίζεται ότι δεν συνιστά καθαυτό ανωμαλία, αλλά αποτελεί διόρθωση μιας ανωμαλίας. Υπάρχει επίσης ο έντονος υπαινιγμός στην έκθεση ότι η συνεισφορά με βάση το ΑΕΕ δεν αποτελεί πραγματικά «ίδιο πόρο» της Ένωσης, καθώς δεν αποτελεί φόρο ο οποίος εισπράττεται από άτομα, αλλά από τα κράτη μέλη και, ως εκ τούτου, είναι λιγότερο ορατός στους πολίτες. Εντούτοις, πρόκειται όντως, από νομική άποψη, για πόρο ο οποίος προορίζεται για την Ένωση. Παρότι είναι λιγότερο ορατός, δεν παύει να είναι περισσότερο δίκαιος από πολλές άλλες προτεινόμενες πηγές εσόδων, καθόσον συνδέεται με το επίπεδο ευημερίας των κρατών μελών. Αποτελεί επίσης πιο σταθερή πηγή εσόδων σε σύγκριση με πολλά από τα άλλα συστήματα που έχουν προταθεί. Πρέπει να διατηρηθεί!"@el¹⁰ "Si bien acojo con satisfacción los esfuerzos dedicados a reflexiones etéreas sobre futuras fuentes de ingresos de la Unión Europea, y aunque me complace que se vinculen explícitamente con la necesidad de reformar paralelamente el lado del gasto, tengo mis dudas sobre algunos aspectos de este informe. La atención está todavía demasiado enfocada en la cuestión del «cheque británico» sin reconocer que, en sí mismo, esto no es una anomalía, sino la corrección de una anomalía. El informe implica asimismo de modo insistente que el recurso basado en el PNB no es realmente un «recurso propio» de la Unión, puesto que no es un impuesto que grava a los individuos, sino a los Estados miembros, y por tanto es menos visible para los ciudadanos. Pero, jurídicamente, es un recurso que se paga a la Unión. Aunque es menos visible, por otra parte es más equitativo que muchas de las demás fuentes de ingresos propuestas, puesto que está vinculado al nivel de prosperidad de los Estados miembros. También es una fuente de ingresos más estable que algunas de las otras que se han propuesto. Habría que mantenerla."@es²¹ "Whilst I welcome the efforts that have gone into some early blue-sky thinking on the future sources of revenue of the European Union, and whilst I appreciate the explicit link made to the need to reform in parallel the expenditure side, I have my doubts about some aspects of this report. There is still too much focus on the one issue of the British rebate without recognising that this is not itself an anomaly but is the correction to an anomaly. There is also a strong implication in the report that the GNI-based resource is not really an ‘own resource’ of the Union, as it is not a tax on individuals but on Member States and is therefore less visible to citizens. Yet it is, legally, a resource due to the Union. Although it is less visible, it is, on the other hand, more equitable than many of the other suggested sources of revenue as it is tied to the level of prosperity in Member States. It is also a more stable source of revenue than some of the others that have been suggested. It should be kept!"@et⁵ ". Vaikka suhtaudun myönteisesti siihen, että Euroopan unionin tulevaisuuden tulolähteitä on ryhdytty pohtimaan korkealentoisesti jo varhaisessa vaiheessa, ja vaikka arvostan sitä, että menopuolen uudistusten samanaikaisuutta korostetaan, suhtaudun epäillen joihinkin tämän mietinnön kohtiin. Mietinnössä käsitellään yhä turhan laajasti Yhdistyneen kuningaskunnan hyvitystä koskevaa kysymystä ilman, että siinä tuodaan esiin, ettei kyse ole sinänsä poikkeuksesta vaan poikkeavan tilanteen edellyttämästä korjauksesta. Mietinnössä viitataan myös voimakkaasti siihen, etteivät BKTL-perusteiset varat ole välttämättä Euroopan unionin "omia varoja", koska kyse ei ole yksityisiltä vaan jäsenvaltioilta peritystä verosta, joka ei siten ole yhtä näkyvä kansalaisten kannalta. Kyse on kuitenkin Euroopan unionin lakisääteisestä tulolähteestä. Vaikka se ei olekaan niin näkyvä, se on toisaalta paljon oikeudenmukaisempi kuin monet muista tulolähteistä, koska se on sidoksissa jäsenvaltioiden vaurauteen. Se on myös monia muita ehdotettuja tulolähteitä vakaampi. Se olisi syytä säilyttää."@fi⁷ ". Je salue les efforts déployés dans ce rapport pour élaborer une approche très optimiste sur les futures sources de revenus de l’Union européenne, et j’apprécie assurément le lien explicite qui y est fait entre la nécessité de réforme et les dépenses. En revanche, j’ai quelques doutes vis-à-vis de certains aspects de ce rapport. Il se concentre encore trop sur la seule question du rabais britannique, sans admettre que ce rabais n’est pas une anomalie en soi, mais bien la correction d’une anomalie. En outre, le rapport laisse entendre que les ressources prélevées sur le RNB ne sont pas réellement «des ressources propres» de l’Union, puisque la taxation ne s’opère pas sur les particuliers mais sur les états membres, ce qui la rend moins visible pour les citoyens. Pourtant, d’un point de vue juridique, ce sont des ressources dues à l’Union. Si elles sont moins visibles, elles sont également plus équitables que la plupart des autres sources de revenus proposées, puisqu’elles sont liées au niveau de prospérité des états membres. Il s’agit également d’une source de revenu plus stable que plusieurs de celles qui ont été suggérées. Elle doit donc être conservée!"@fr⁸ "Whilst I welcome the efforts that have gone into some early blue-sky thinking on the future sources of revenue of the European Union, and whilst I appreciate the explicit link made to the need to reform in parallel the expenditure side, I have my doubts about some aspects of this report. There is still too much focus on the one issue of the British rebate without recognising that this is not itself an anomaly but is the correction to an anomaly. There is also a strong implication in the report that the GNI-based resource is not really an ‘own resource’ of the Union, as it is not a tax on individuals but on Member States and is therefore less visible to citizens. Yet it is, legally, a resource due to the Union. Although it is less visible, it is, on the other hand, more equitable than many of the other suggested sources of revenue as it is tied to the level of prosperity in Member States. It is also a more stable source of revenue than some of the others that have been suggested. It should be kept!"@hu¹¹ "Mentre accolgo con favore gli sforzi profusi per una riflessione teorica preliminare sulle future fonti di reddito dell’Unione europea, e mentre apprezzo il collegamento esplicito alla necessità di riformare in parallelo il versante della spesa, nutro qualche dubbio su alcuni aspetti della relazione. C’è ancora troppa attenzione focalizzata sulla questione della compensazione britannica, senza riconoscere che essa non costituisce un’anomalia, ma la correzione di un’anomalia. La relazione indica inoltre con forza che la risorsa basata sul reddito nazionale lordo non è realmente una “risorsa propria” dell’Unione, poiché non è una tassa sugli individui ma sugli Stati membri ed è quindi meno visibile per i cittadini. Eppure, dal punto di vista giuridico, è una risorsa spettante all’Unione. Anche se è meno visibile, d’altro lato è più equa di molte altre fonti di entrate suggerite poiché è ancorata al livello di prosperità negli Stati membri. E’ altresì una fonte di reddito più stabile di alcune altre che sono state proposte. Dovrebbe essere mantenuta!"@it¹² "Whilst I welcome the efforts that have gone into some early blue-sky thinking on the future sources of revenue of the European Union, and whilst I appreciate the explicit link made to the need to reform in parallel the expenditure side, I have my doubts about some aspects of this report. There is still too much focus on the one issue of the British rebate without recognising that this is not itself an anomaly but is the correction to an anomaly. There is also a strong implication in the report that the GNI-based resource is not really an ‘own resource’ of the Union, as it is not a tax on individuals but on Member States and is therefore less visible to citizens. Yet it is, legally, a resource due to the Union. Although it is less visible, it is, on the other hand, more equitable than many of the other suggested sources of revenue as it is tied to the level of prosperity in Member States. It is also a more stable source of revenue than some of the others that have been suggested. It should be kept!"@lt¹⁴ "Whilst I welcome the efforts that have gone into some early blue-sky thinking on the future sources of revenue of the European Union, and whilst I appreciate the explicit link made to the need to reform in parallel the expenditure side, I have my doubts about some aspects of this report. There is still too much focus on the one issue of the British rebate without recognising that this is not itself an anomaly but is the correction to an anomaly. There is also a strong implication in the report that the GNI-based resource is not really an ‘own resource’ of the Union, as it is not a tax on individuals but on Member States and is therefore less visible to citizens. Yet it is, legally, a resource due to the Union. Although it is less visible, it is, on the other hand, more equitable than many of the other suggested sources of revenue as it is tied to the level of prosperity in Member States. It is also a more stable source of revenue than some of the others that have been suggested. It should be kept!"@lv¹³ "Whilst I welcome the efforts that have gone into some early blue-sky thinking on the future sources of revenue of the European Union, and whilst I appreciate the explicit link made to the need to reform in parallel the expenditure side, I have my doubts about some aspects of this report. There is still too much focus on the one issue of the British rebate without recognising that this is not itself an anomaly but is the correction to an anomaly. There is also a strong implication in the report that the GNI-based resource is not really an ‘own resource’ of the Union, as it is not a tax on individuals but on Member States and is therefore less visible to citizens. Yet it is, legally, a resource due to the Union. Although it is less visible, it is, on the other hand, more equitable than many of the other suggested sources of revenue as it is tied to the level of prosperity in Member States. It is also a more stable source of revenue than some of the others that have been suggested. It should be kept!"@mt¹⁵ ". Ik ben blij met de pogingen die zijn ondernomen om ons al vroeg te bezinnen op de toekomstige inkomstenbronnen van de Europese Unie en ik waardeer het dat er een uitdrukkelijk verband wordt gelegd met de noodzaak om gelijktijdig de uitgavenkant te hervormen, en toch heb ik mijn twijfels over bepaalde aspecten van dit verslag. Er is nog steeds te veel aandacht voor de Britse korting zonder te erkennen dat deze korting op zichzelf niet abnormaal is, maar de correctie op een abnormale situatie vormt. Tevens wordt in het verslag gesuggereerd dat het op het BNI gebaseerde middel geen echt "eigen middel" van de Unie vormt, omdat deze belasting niet van individuen maar van lidstaten wordt geheven en daarom voor burgers minder zichtbaar is. Toch gaat het hier, juridisch gezien, wel degelijk om een middel dat aan de Unie verschuldigd is. Hoewel minder zichtbaar, is het rechtvaardiger dan veel van de andere voorgestelde inkomstenbronnen, omdat het gekoppeld is aan het welvaartsniveau in de lidstaten. Het is ook een stabielere bron van inkomsten dan enkele van de andere voorgestelde inkomstenbronnen. Dit middel moet blijven bestaan!"@nl³ "Whilst I welcome the efforts that have gone into some early blue-sky thinking on the future sources of revenue of the European Union, and whilst I appreciate the explicit link made to the need to reform in parallel the expenditure side, I have my doubts about some aspects of this report. There is still too much focus on the one issue of the British rebate without recognising that this is not itself an anomaly but is the correction to an anomaly. There is also a strong implication in the report that the GNI-based resource is not really an ‘own resource’ of the Union, as it is not a tax on individuals but on Member States and is therefore less visible to citizens. Yet it is, legally, a resource due to the Union. Although it is less visible, it is, on the other hand, more equitable than many of the other suggested sources of revenue as it is tied to the level of prosperity in Member States. It is also a more stable source of revenue than some of the others that have been suggested. It should be kept!"@pl¹⁶ "Embora saúde os esforços que enveredaram por uma reflexão algo prematura e sem finalidade prática sobre as futuras fontes de receita da União Europeia, embora aprecie a ligação explícita com a necessidade de reformar em simultâneo a vertente da despesa, tenho as minhas dúvidas relativamente a alguns aspectos do presente relatório. Continua a dar demasiada importância à questão da correcção a favor do Reino Unido sem no entanto reconhecer que esta não é em si mesma uma anomalia mas sim a correcção de uma anomalia. Verifica-se também no relatório uma forte referência a que o recurso baseado no RNB não é verdadeiramente um “recurso próprio” da União, assim como não é um imposto sobre pessoas singulares mas sobre os Estados-Membros, o que o torna menos visível para os cidadãos. No entanto, do ponto de vista jurídico, é um recurso que é devido à União. Embora seja menos visível, ele é, por outro lado, mais equitativo do que muitas das outras fontes de receitas que foram sugeridas, uma vez que está associado ao nível de prosperidade dos Estados-Membros. É igualmente uma fonte de receitas mais estável do que algumas das outras que foram sugeridas. Deve ser mantida!"@pt¹⁷ "Whilst I welcome the efforts that have gone into some early blue-sky thinking on the future sources of revenue of the European Union, and whilst I appreciate the explicit link made to the need to reform in parallel the expenditure side, I have my doubts about some aspects of this report. There is still too much focus on the one issue of the British rebate without recognising that this is not itself an anomaly but is the correction to an anomaly. There is also a strong implication in the report that the GNI-based resource is not really an ‘own resource’ of the Union, as it is not a tax on individuals but on Member States and is therefore less visible to citizens. Yet it is, legally, a resource due to the Union. Although it is less visible, it is, on the other hand, more equitable than many of the other suggested sources of revenue as it is tied to the level of prosperity in Member States. It is also a more stable source of revenue than some of the others that have been suggested. It should be kept!"@ro¹⁸ "Whilst I welcome the efforts that have gone into some early blue-sky thinking on the future sources of revenue of the European Union, and whilst I appreciate the explicit link made to the need to reform in parallel the expenditure side, I have my doubts about some aspects of this report. There is still too much focus on the one issue of the British rebate without recognising that this is not itself an anomaly but is the correction to an anomaly. There is also a strong implication in the report that the GNI-based resource is not really an ‘own resource’ of the Union, as it is not a tax on individuals but on Member States and is therefore less visible to citizens. Yet it is, legally, a resource due to the Union. Although it is less visible, it is, on the other hand, more equitable than many of the other suggested sources of revenue as it is tied to the level of prosperity in Member States. It is also a more stable source of revenue than some of the others that have been suggested. It should be kept!"@sk¹⁹ "Whilst I welcome the efforts that have gone into some early blue-sky thinking on the future sources of revenue of the European Union, and whilst I appreciate the explicit link made to the need to reform in parallel the expenditure side, I have my doubts about some aspects of this report. There is still too much focus on the one issue of the British rebate without recognising that this is not itself an anomaly but is the correction to an anomaly. There is also a strong implication in the report that the GNI-based resource is not really an ‘own resource’ of the Union, as it is not a tax on individuals but on Member States and is therefore less visible to citizens. Yet it is, legally, a resource due to the Union. Although it is less visible, it is, on the other hand, more equitable than many of the other suggested sources of revenue as it is tied to the level of prosperity in Member States. It is also a more stable source of revenue than some of the others that have been suggested. It should be kept!"@sl²⁰ "Jag välkomnar förvisso det arbete som ligger bakom denna idékläckning i ett tidigt skede om framtida inkomstkällor för EU, och uppskattar den tydliga kopplingen till behovet att samtidigt reformera utgiftssidan, men ifrågasätter dock vissa delar av betänkandet. Man fokuserar fortfarande för mycket på den brittiska rabatten utan att inse att den i sig inte är en oegentlighet utan en korrigering av en oegentlighet. I betänkandet framförs dessutom uppfattningen att de BNI-baserade medlen egentligen inte är unionens ”egna medel”, eftersom de inte är skatter från enskilda personer utan från medlemsstaterna och att de därför är mindre synliga för medborgarna. Från rättslig synpunkt är de ändå medel som ska betalas till unionen. De är förvisso mindre synliga, men å andra sidan är de mer rättvisa än många av de andra föreslagna inkomstkällorna, eftersom de är kopplade till välståndsnivån i medlemsstaterna. De är också en stabilare inkomstkälla än vissa av de andra förslagen. De bör behållas!"@sv²²
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	", in writing"^{18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,13,4} "Richard Corbett (PSE )"^{18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,13,4}