Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-02-12-Speech-3-300"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030212.10.3-300"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, thank you for allowing me to take the floor yet again. I will confine my reply to a few main points.
We must, as Mrs McCarthy said, do our best to do what we decided at Lisbon. Lisbon said that we should have a microeconomic structural adjustment programme. There is a delivery gap and we are not doing as well as we ought to. Indeed it is in the Council, most often, where there are obstacles. I tell them with great regularity that they should be quicker. That also applies to the Takeover Directive mentioned by Mrs McCarthy and others.
Lastly, I entirely agree with Mr Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado that we should see to it that there are no obstacles to the setting-up of small- and medium-sized enterprises. The time needed to set up such a company is much longer than it is in the United States. If we really want to overtake the United States as far as the creation of small- and medium-sized enterprises is concerned, we must see to it that we act in accordance with the words of Mr Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado.
First, I welcome the fact that those who have spoken - all but one perhaps - have supported the report written by Mr Harbour and also support most clearly and energetically the whole concept of the internal market. Without the support of Parliament the Commission would be at a loss as to what to do with regard to furthering the internal market. I can assure Mr Harbour that I will speak to my Liberal friends and tell them what they missed tonight. Mr Harbour will recall that the Liberal complement of this Parliament is somewhat smaller than the group to which he himself belongs. Personally speaking, I regret that but it is what it is.
Both Mr Harbour and Mr Martin have made references to the European Council. Sometimes the European Council rather airily asks ministers concerned to deal with that issue and then move on to more rarefied subjects. I recall that, perhaps a year ago, the European Council said that the Community Patent should be dealt with as soon as possible by the Commission and the Council of Ministers. Nothing has happened. It is not much use for the European Council to issue generalities. I wish it would deal more with the subjects at hand.
Mr Harbour also mentioned the subject of sales promotion. The Commission will certainly do its best to help the Greek Presidency reach a conclusion on that important file. I shall discuss the matter with those Member States that have outstanding concerns. It is my opinion that the proposal is compatible with the follow-up to the Green Paper on Consumer Protection, as my colleague Commissioner Byrne and I have made clear on many occasions.
Mr Martin spoke about a European health card. He may be interested to know that the Commission is engaged in activities in the area of health. The issue concerns citizens who cannot get quick treatment in their own country and so want to go abroad to get treatment. The European Court of Justice, not long ago, delivered a judgment stating that not only should that be allowed, but also that compensation should be paid to the patient according to the rules of his home country. The issue is now whether or not that patient should get authorisation from the authorities in his own country before going abroad for treatment.
There was a meeting on that important subject in the so-called 'High Level Reflection Group' last week. I and my colleagues Commissioner Diamantopoulou and Commissioner Byrne were there to defend the principle that this also relates to the internal market because, if a patient goes abroad to get treatment, that is a matter of the freedom of services. Therefore it is an aspect of the internal market and one that is very close to the citizen. After all, what is more important to a person than his health?
Mr Martin may be interested to hear about this. He can rest assured that my colleagues and I are determined to pursue that subject, although some Member States do not agree with this approach. That is an obstacle.
Turning to Mr Karas' point about different tax barriers which exist, again, the Commission is not sitting on its hands. We use the instruments of infringement proceedings and, in particular where citizens of one Member State get tax relief if they contribute to pension fund in their own Member State but do not get tax relief if they contribute to a pension fund in another Member State. That is a clear case of discrimination against the second Member State. Recently the Commission has started infringement proceedings. Already, in one particular case, the European Court of Justice ruled that this is not admissible. The Commission is determined to pursue obstacles of a fiscal nature where such an obstacle impinges on the internal market, but only where the Treaty allows us to do so. As Members will realise, the area of taxation requires unanimity. To get unanimity among 15 Member States is extremely difficult. To get unanimity in 25 Member States would be well nigh impossible.
Regarding Mrs McCarthy's point on the scoreboard, it is perhaps an unpleasant, but very necessary matter to keep Member States focused on what they have to do. The scoreboard is a form of 'soft law', peer pressure or best practice. It is not a legal instrument but it goes together with the matter of infringement proceedings. Therefore we are determined to continue issuing those scoreboards."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples