Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-06-13-Speech-2-073"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000613.8.2-073"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the Commission proposal introduces a series of stricter regulations for the marketing of tobacco products. Our group shares the concerns about the harmful effects of tobacco and, apart from a few reservations, generally approves the Commission’s proposals, together with many of the amendments in Mr Μaaten’s report, although I do not know how effective they will be, especially those which go over the top, as other members have pointed out. Be that as it may, we shall vote in favour of most of them, together with those approved by other jointly responsible parliamentary committees.
However, there are a number of proposals and amendments which either have no bearing on the matter or which will cause serious economic problems without solving the problems which they are supposedly addressing. The problem has been raised, albeit indirectly, of reducing and abolishing production aids for tobacco. Clearly such a move will not help to reduce smoking because I have not seen any of the members on their high horses proposing a ban on tobacco imports and such a move would therefore merely promote tobacco production in third countries.
As for the proposals which say that money saved by abolishing subsidies will be put to certain uses, the members making these proposals obviously have no idea how the budget works. Ex ante commitments are worthless unless they constitute actual policy worked out by the relevant bodies, rather than just a statement made in a parliamentary committee.
Another amendment abolishes the derogation previously granted to the Greek tobacco industry for nicotine, tar and other yields. In other words, it will upset the investment and production plans based on our decisions, based on the deadline previously granted. And it will upset them retroactively. What sort of law school did the people who approve such arbitrary reversals attend? I should be most interested to hear the Commission’s comments on this.
Finally, industry is required to apply the same specifications to export products as it is to those marketed in the European Union, even if the importing countries require no such thing. This measure is presented from a moral standpoint, which, however, does not prevent tobacco industries from moving outside the European Union and exporting their products throughout the world from third countries. Multinationals are already doing just that. Obviously, the rest will follow, with huge repercussions on economic activity and employment within the European Union. Of course, the European Union could try – quite rightly – to impose its specifications on candidate and other countries with which it has close ties, perhaps even on the World Trade Organisation. But instead of focusing on serious matters, we prefer a simple, or rather a highly simplistic and ineffectual solution. I assume that the Commission, which has conducted a more in-depth analysis, will be able to enlighten us further so that, at the end of the day, we opt for a more balanced, more effective and more logical way forward."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples