Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-06-13-Speech-2-339"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000613.19.2-339"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, it does feel a little odd to be debating Swedish alcohol policy today in the European Parliament, for that of course is really what this report is about. Before the referendum on EU membership, the Swedish Government solemnly promised that Swedish alcohol policy would be maintained unaltered. Now, the Social Democratic Government, together with the Left Party and the Moderates, has given an informal promise, as the Commission’s text puts it, to approve the Commission’s proposal gradually to abolish the restrictions on imports of alcohol and tobacco so that these no longer exist by the year 2003.
In the long term, phasing out the rules on imports means phasing out Swedish alcohol policy. Doing so will, in fact, put a big strain on alcohol policy which is based entirely upon high prices for consumers, that is to say a high tax on alcohol.
Four parties in the Swedish Parliament oppose the Commission’s and the Government’s line: the Christian Democrats, the Liberals (whom we have just heard speak), the Centre Party and the Greens. These parties are demanding that the Government should stand for, and argue in favour of, keeping the Swedish derogation for as long as the Council has not unanimously taken another decision.
It is extremely important to clarify the EU’s own policy on this question. What ought the Court of Justice of the European Communities to have said? As Mr Maaten is very carefully intimating, this is not merely a question of the internal market but also a health issue. Alcohol and tobacco are the factors which cause, for example, the greatest health problems within the EU, major costs to society and great suffering to individuals.
Article 152 and Article 95.3 of the Treaties talk of how important it is to have a high level of protection, and Article 30 in actual fact permits restrictions on imports, partly on the grounds of people’s health.
Sweden has chosen another method, a successful method where alcohol policy is concerned. We have less harm caused by alcohol than most countries in the world, and very low alcohol consumption compared with other EU countries. I do not know whether it is cause for laughter or for tears, but it is certainly worth noting that, as recently as last year, the Member States approved another European action plan for alcohol, prepared by the World Health Organisation. According to this plan, States should impose more tax on alcohol, and there should also be higher minimum taxes on alcohol within the EU. This is recommended as a part of public health strategy. Why dismantle Sweden’s alcohol policy when the EU’s public health strategy points in the same direction with a view to reducing the harm caused by alcohol?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples