Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-14-Speech-2-150"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000314.9.2-150"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am now with you again, while the Commission continues its work and now that it has just concluded its work (that is the least I can say) on the matter which I wish now to present to you. Moreover, Mr President, if I wish to do my job properly, I shall have to return to the committee at 5.45 p.m., as scheduled, in order to present another matter which I am responsible for, to do with the Community support framework for Portugal, while at the same time I must also answer another question in the following debate. I am not very sure, given the joint, or parallel, organisation of our work, how I shall be able to do this properly. I shall do my best, and I am pleased to give you an explanation, keeping in mind that we shall have other opportunities, within the relevant committees, particularly the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, to go into this subject, in connection with the Intergovernmental Conference and the reform of the institutions.
But this first principle gives rise to a second, which is as follows: qualified majority to enable measures to be adopted which are more directly linked to the proper operation of the internal market. We know, and you know, that some national legislation in the field of taxation and social security may, by virtue of its content or nature, have repercussions for the operation of the internal market.
The Commission considers that the Community must be able to adopt, by qualified majority, those measures which are most directly linked to the proper operation of the internal market. That is the second principle.
Finally, my third principle, we must in future select the best instrument to respect subsidiarity. It may simply be a matter of coordination; it may be a matter of establishing minimum requirements; it may also be a matter, at a higher level, of harmonisation. But this selection of the best instrument must be limited to that which is strictly necessary. Generally speaking, the end goal of measures for which the transition to qualified majority is suggested would not be to harmonise the national legislative systems systematically, but simply to coordinate them. This is in any case, ladies and gentlemen, what has been going on for almost forty years in the field of social security. We also consider it important to introduce it to the field of taxation too.
Still, before answering your questions, I would like briefly to mention the content of the proposals as you will read them. Regarding direct taxation, we propose the qualified majority in order to coordinate the campaign against fraud and tax evasion and in order to ensure proper handling of situations involving the legislations of several Member States. For the remainder, unanimity shall remain the general rule.
Regarding indirect taxation, in order to combat fraud, and modernise and simplify the
in the light of economic developments, in order to take account of the objectives of the Treaty in environmental matters, we propose to act by qualified majority decisions. We further propose to retain unanimity for decisions on tax rates and the points of taxation.
In short, still on the subject of taxation, in the interests of clarity and legibility we are proposing to combine the provisions for all tax measures in a single article which will be reorganised and rewritten as Article 93. In so doing we are seeking to achieve coherence.
My fourth point, this time, regarding the coordination of legislation in matters of social security, we propose qualified majority voting in order to update and adapt the conditions intended to avoid penalising people, not just workers. in addition to workers, there are also, for example, students who move about within the Community. We must avoid penalising them.
Finally, with regard to the minimum requirements for social security, there is one possibility that we propose to extend to social security, which already exists for other areas of social policy, which involves adopting minimum requirements by qualified majority vote.
Mr President, let me just say one final word to explain the state of mind I have continued to work in, as we had done under President Prodi in adopting our opinion on 26 January. The Commission undertook to carry out clear, proactive work. We eliminated any ideological thinking. We wish to keep to specific facts and tangible proposals in order to avoid approaching matters with slogans or ideologically.
Let me confirm, finally, that, in addition to this extra presentation, I shall be returning to this House to give further presentations of the Commission opinion on the whole of the reform of the European institutions prior to enlargement, as we did on 26 January.
I would like to offer a word of thanks to two of my fellow Commissioners, Frits Bolkestein and Anna Diamantopoulou, for the support they have given me in drawing up this text. I should like to remind you that I announced this text on 26 January when the Commission adopted its formal opinion and its proposals for the reform of the institutions. I did mention before this House our intention to outline and clarify some aspects of this opinion at a later date. A few days ago we did this with regard to the Union’s system of jurisdiction, the role of the Court of Justice and the role of the Court of First Instance. Today we are doing this with regard to an extremely important, delicate and specific subject, the scope of qualified majority voting in certain areas of taxation and social security. Mr President, we shall continue in this way to fuel the debate on the negotiations, particularly on the matter which is of interest to Parliament, the independent European public prosecutor responsible for combating fraud, but also on an extremely important matter, the reorganisation of the Treaties.
With regard to the subject which I have to present to you today, let me remind you that the Commission opinion issued on 26 January declared this to be one of the main areas we thought should remain subject to unanimity. We had identified five categories of exceptions to the general rule which we approved, according to which, within the Union, decisions would henceforth be taken by qualified majority vote. We had, however, identified, for institutional reasons, with regard to extremely serious or sensitive issues, five categories of exceptions requiring unanimity. This was one of them. We had also excluded decisions incompatible with the objectives of the internal market or which may give rise to distortions of competition. This is the point we have discussed today in order to complete our opinion.
Ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to remind you that the proposals which you are to receive in a few moments, or in a few hours, do not include any transfer of jurisdiction, nor do they constitute an action programme in essence. These proposals concern the methods for decision making in matters of taxation and social security. Having said that, I should like to clarify three misunderstandings which sometimes arise. Firstly, the Commission is not demanding new jurisdiction for taxation and social security. Ever since the Treaty of Rome, the Treaties have provided for Community action in both these areas. Switching from unanimity to qualified majority is not a transfer of jurisdiction. The Commission is keeping strictly to the areas of jurisdiction which are already available to the European Community.
Let me take VAT as an example. in this matter, we are confronted with an important part of Community legislation which has been developed since the 1970s. The fact that the Council may henceforth update this legislation by qualified majority, in order to take account of the development of, for example, e-commerce, can certainly not be considered a transfer of jurisdiction. the jurisdiction was already in place at Community level. It is only the method of decision making which may change. This is the first point that I wished to make clear.
The second point I would like to make is that the Commission does not wish to impose the levelling of national tax systems or social security systems. The matter we wish to deal with is how to maintain what already exists and share it with all the new Member States.
Let us not forget that in the exercise we are currently involved in, in these negotiations, it is a matter of knowing how the European Union will operate with 18, 20, 25, 27 or even 28 Member States, in order to ensure that each of these states, the ones who are already members and the ones about to join us, may get the most out of the single market, a market whose treaties have made a driving force of the economic and social development of Europe. It is a case, then, of introducing qualified majority where we think it necessary, and leaving unanimous decisions where they are preferable.
Finally, the Commission wishes to make it clear that this additional presentation does not encompass its entire programme for years to come in all areas. It does not include the measures that the Commission may envisage for the future, or the basic proposals that it intends to put forward at some point. My fellow Commissioners, Mrs Diamantopoulou and Mr Bolkestein, will inform you when the time comes regarding the various aspects of the Commission programme.
I should now like to mention the principles which oriented our approach in the document which you are to receive shortly. Let me say again, unanimity is to remain the general rule. The Commission opinion issued on 26 January considered that, because they reflect the fundamental orientations of the national legislator in matters of economic and social policy and solidarity, taxation and social security are largely decisive in the national political choices of citizens. The Commission therefore considers it justifiable to retain unanimity in these areas as a basic principle. We confirm this approach. Moreover, these national choices are generally – let me specify – generally, neutral with regard to the construction of Europe. This is the first principle."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples