Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-02-Speech-1-059"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030602.6.1-059"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are nearing the end of a long journey, an odyssey that has, from time to time, seen us wandering far afield and sometimes finding ourselves in choppy waters. The attempt has been made to persuade us that this statute was about nothing more than reforming the reimbursement of travel costs, that it was about money and nothing else. A statute dealing only with money, with its reimbursement, and with costs, is not, though, the sort of statute that the European Parliament needs at the present time.
We were told that primary legislation would run aground on the cliffs of the Council, and that our ideas on tax law would drag us down to the depths of the ocean. Now, if I may pick out these as examples, I think that we have good arguments on our side. The two problems that remain to be resolved are taxes and primary law, and – as far as taxes are concerned – the Council thinks it can leave it to each individual Member State to decide whether or not it wants to levy an additional national tax. It so happens that, in 2000, the three legal services – those of Parliament, the Council, and the Commission – met to discuss this issue. The minutes of their deliberations record their conclusion that they could find no justification for a derogation for a Member State, and then they continue in the following terms:"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples