Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-24-Speech-2-030"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001024.2.2-030"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council. I have two minutes and two messages: one on the Charter and one on taxation policy.
Concerning the Charter, you have just replied in a very well reasoned manner, but my Group is nonetheless anxious to say to you that the work must go on. Work must continue, first of all, in respect of the content, if not now then at some time in the future at least, because we need more than just fine words. From the outset the Convention worked on the assumption that the Charter would be binding. As a result, we negotiated on an
basis and we have a minimal Charter, particularly as regards social rights. I can cite two practical examples: on the one hand we shifted the emphasis from the right to work to the right to engage in work and, on the other hand, a number of social rights that are covered in the revised Social Charter of the Council of Europe are not included in the Charter.
Faced with this paradox of having negotiated a binding charter and then ended up with a minimal text and a non-binding charter, there is a real need, as some of the other Members have said, to take a series of decisions at Nice. A first course of action would be that of Article 6. A second course of action would be to actually establish a timetable at Nice and a clear method for rewriting the Treaties and incorporating the Charter into these Treaties. A third and final course of action, which no one has talked about but which seems to me very important, is the need to also incorporate a revision clause into the Charter so that we have a dynamic rather than a static text.
Concerning taxation policy, Mr Barnier has quite rightly said that qualified majority voting is the criterion for an ambitious Treaty. I have to say that Article 93, in the form in which it has been drawn up by the Presidency, does not enable us to address even a straightforward debate. If we want to pursue the objectives that the Union has set itself, that of reducing taxation on employment and taxing pollution, and that of preventing damaging tax competition, which are two of the Union’s common goals, we must make it understood that the only solution is joint sovereignty between the Member States and not tax competition between these States. The wording of Article 93 becomes all the more critical considering that, once the first wave of new states has joined the Union, it will be all the more difficult for us to progress towards qualified majority voting.
Mr Moscovici, Prime Minister Jospin had the extremely good idea of enlisting the aid of a economic analysis committee. This committee has just produced a study entitled ‘European Issues’. If you read through this study, you will see that the conclusions it comes to on taxation policy issues are the very ones that I have just set out."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"a minima"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples