Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-14-Speech-3-352"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011114.13.3-352"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, this is one of the few occasions on which I agree with the rapporteur, Mr Katiforis, not because we talk the same language or are from the same country, but because we agree on what is called common sense. I am sorry, but common sense is nowhere to be seen in this proposal for a directive, which we, too, propose should be rejected in its entirety. If it is not rejected, we are all in danger of exposing ourselves because, if this sort of directive is adopted, it will have exactly the opposite of, what the Council says, are the desired results. I should also like to point out that it would be most useful if the Council were present rather than absent, like their common sense.
The Council says that the aim is to combat tax evasion and cigarette smuggling. If we increase tax, then we shall increase tax evasion. We all know that, the higher the tax, the more attractive tax evasion becomes. If we increase the price of cigarettes, as is proposed, then we shall, without question, increase cigarette smuggling because we shall be making legal cigarettes more expensive than smuggled cigarettes. So we shall be working counter to our aims. Again, the Council tells us that one of its aims is to protect public health and that this aim will be achieved by people giving up smoking because cigarettes are more expensive. And who can say that people stop smoking when cigarettes go up in price? The best case scenario is that there will be no change in the consumption of cigarettes. The worst case scenario is that smokers on low incomes will change to cheaper, that is, more harmful cigarettes. Is that what we want to achieve? How clever of us!
Similarly, the proposals in the proposed directive are wrong because, first of all, they restrict application to five, mainly southern countries. The other ten are not affected because they are already at the topmost point. Secondly, the cost of living will rise in these five countries, four of which are southern countries, without any increase in wages, thereby exacerbating inflationary pressures. I also think we should ask ourselves what the candidate countries have to say about this proposal for a directive? Do they think it shows the European Union's concern for them? And it would be helpful to know how their governments are going to persuade them that integration into the European Union will benefit consumers, when they will have to pay 200 to 500% more for cigarettes under this sort of directive.
Finally, I should like to express my disappointment with Ecofin for its rushed attempt to pre-empt tomorrow's vote here by issuing details of its compromise agreement. That was a mistake on their part."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples