Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-13-Speech-3-166"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001213.7.3-166"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission and Parliament have in recent years made great efforts to achieve harmonisation in the levying of VAT within the European Union. This is, in fact, an important tool in the building of the internal market and also a substantial source of revenue in the Community budget. Thus, in 1992, an agreement was reached, at the time considered a minimum harmonisation, by which the standard rate for VAT could not be less than 15% and the Member States would have the power to apply one or more reduced rates of not less than 5%, with, however, derogations provided for in this case. But this first stage should have lasted only until the end of 1996, when the definitive system was to come in. The proposals submitted in the meantime only led to the floor of the standard rate of VAT being fixed at 15% – although the Commission had also proposed a ceiling of 25%, which was not accepted – and to the system being extended until the end of 2000. Now that we have come to the end of this year, the Commission proposes we should follow two paths in this field: the first is dealt with in my colleague, García-Margallo y Marfil’s report on the coordination of VAT administrative systems; the second is dealt with in this report, and seeks to put off any decision on the subject of VAT rate harmonisation until 2006.
While I agree with the proposals for coordinating the administrative systems for levying VAT, I do not agree, and neither does the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, with the proposal to postpone the harmonisation process for five years. Has the Commission given up advancing this dossier for the whole length of its mandate? Does the Commission not consider, as we do, that the existence of the euro as the forthcoming single currency in twelve European Union states will lead to price transparency that will show up the distortion introduced into the internal market by the existence of such disparities among the rates applied in the various countries of the Union? Does this Commission and, in particular, Commissioner Frederik Bolkestein, consider this to be a case of tax competition that he wishes to maintain or even encourage through his report? This is not our view, and we have therefore voted to bring this deadline forward to the end of 2003 so that, once the euro has been in practical usage for two years, new solutions can be put forward.
Additionally, in keeping with the positions adopted in this Parliament, I propose that the references to the need for voting in the Council on this subject to be unanimous should be removed. If the Treaties continue to require this, so be it. But, as I see it, nothing forces the Commission and Parliament to lay down now that, at the end of 2005, the Council vote on this subject has to be unanimous. Such a proposal is not in line with the principles put forward either by the Commission or by Parliament for the IGC that has just finished. There is even less justification for deciding now that it must be so until the end of 2005, when we know that there will be another review of the Treaties in the meantime. Therefore, we also propose removing this requirement for unanimity.
In conclusion, let us say that we do not like to see the Commission giving up completely on VAT harmonisation at the beginning of its mandate, and Parliament, understanding the need to extend the validity of the legislation in force, being left waiting for the Commission, in the middle of its mandate and with the euro already in circulation, to present us with a new, full and thorough proposal on this matter."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples