Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-04-Speech-2-025"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060404.6.2-025"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioners, the discussion of the broad economic policy guidelines has given us many headaches in previous years.
The Vice-President of the Commission has referred to coordinating the broad economic policy guidelines and the employment guidelines within a single document: it is true, but they are still subject to different information and consultation procedures which make them difficult to understand. Furthermore, it is necessary to incorporate other documents in order to ensure that it is not fragmentary.
With regard to taxation in an institutional sense, we call upon the Commission to respond to what the High Court of Justice has said: a uniform definition of tax residence, as an extension of citizenship, the principle of non-discrimination and a convention on double taxation. With regard to coordination, I was pleased with Commissioner Almunia’s kind words: it is true that we have to coordinate more, we must make a precise diagnosis, draw up a correct cure, an analysis of what has happened and define the role of the Eurogroup.
In the field of macroeconomic policy, we do not go into the issue of interest rates, we do not express our opinion. We do say that we have to do everything possible to ensure that prices do not rise and interest stays low. We refer to public debt, in terms used by the Commissioner: less interest, less repayments, means more spending on ageing, more Lisbon.
With regard to the business climate, we call for serious reflection. The United States are ahead of us. 144 of the world’s top companies are from the European Union, while in the case of the United States, that figure stands at 206. Small and medium-sized businesses double their employment in the first two years, something that does not happen in Europe. We are calling for positive discrimination to be applied in favour of small and medium-sized businesses, with particular reference to the funding of risk capital.
In the field of taxation, to put it in simple terms, we ask that Home State Taxation be used for companies in application of the principle of place of origin with regard to VAT.
I have nothing to say with regard to human capital. My colleague has expressed this very well.
In the field of investment: trans-European networks. It would take twenty years to finish them.
Energy, R+D+I, more market, more competition, more competitiveness.
In order to make sure the headache is not so severe this year, I shall restrict myself to three questions: why has Parliament decided to produce a report despite the fact that the Commission has chosen to ratify the previous reports? What can we do to ensure that our reports are heard? And thirdly, what is it that we want the Commission to hear?
Firstly, why a report? Because previous reports contained masses of recommendations that the Commission has not taken into account. Secondly, because, since we discussed the previous report, new factors have arisen: the relative failure of the European Constitution, a new financial perspective, some first interest rate rises, three candidates seeking to join the eurozone, and the Doha Round, which continues the Hong Kong trade talks.
Secondly, because there are certain factors that we have taken up in other reports, but which have become more important over time. Commissioner Almunia referred to the ageing of the population and we should also talk about the consequences of immigration, the consequences of Chinese imports, once the quantitative restrictions have come to an end, about world imbalances, essentially in relation to the United States, and finally the energy crisis.
What can we do in order to be heard? This report has been drawn up in a spirit of consensus, which has obliged many of us to give way on our particular points of view, and I would like in particular to thank all of the representatives of the other parliamentary groups for doing so.
If we want to be heard, the first thing I must point out here is that previously we have not been heard. This report begins with a kind of catalogue of grievances, a list of recommendations that we have made and that the Commission has not taken up.
We asked for a transposition of directives, which has not happened, a reduction of deficits — Commissioner Almunia has pointed out that 12 of the 25 Member States are currently in a situation of excessive deficit — a communication on globalisation in order to make clear to the public the opportunities and challenges it presents — and if this communication had been produced, it would have spared us a few headaches — and we also called for the application of the charters on small and medium-sized businesses, something which has not been done.
Secondly, this report deals with what we might call institutional issues, whether of a constitutional nature or not. During this period of active reflection — which is neither a reflection nor active — we are dealing with those questions which were left over from the Convention and which have not been answered: what are the Union’s objectives and competences? What are the responsibilities of the European Central Bank, while respecting its independence at all times? What should we do in order to reinforce the Stability and Growth Pact? What are the legal bases for modifying taxation in the Union and in the Member States?
There is one explicit recommendation that I would ask the Commission to take particular note of: this Parliament will not approve any directive by means of the Lamfalussy procedure if the problem of call-back is not resolved by 2008, ultimately the international representation of the eurozone."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples