Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-05-22-Speech-2-415"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070522.31.2-415"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I would like to thank all the speakers who contributed to the debate. As I said in my opening remarks, repealing the directive and abolishing minimum rates would have extreme consequences, and I should like to say a little more about this.
Without minimum rates, there would be no obligation whatsoever on Member States to apply excise duties at all on alcohol, and, indeed, given the low importance that some Member States attach to alcohol excise duties in terms of low duty levels, this must be seen as a real possibility.
I have no doubt that, in the absence of minimum rates, some Member States would press for tighter restrictions on the amount of alcohol that individuals can take from one Member State to another, in order to stem the inevitable revenue leakage, and this would result in less freedom for citizens. There is also some suggestion that minimum rates interfere with Member States’ sovereignty. In fact it is quite the opposite. They support Member States’ sovereignty by allowing Member States to pursue their own fiscal policies, without the threat of those policies being undermined by other Member States and, in particular, by cross-border shopping and smuggling.
That does not mean that minimum rates are designed to protect higher-taxing Member States. The fact that the minimum rates are set at a fairly low level and remain low even after the 4.5% revalorisation leaves Member States with plenty of room for manoeuvre. Those who wish to set their national rates at levels close to the minimum are not precluded from doing so. Equally, those who wish to set their rates far above the minimum are free to do so, but they must take the responsibility for the consequences.
I want to confirm once again that the purpose of the proposal is certainly not harmonisation – not even approximation. The purpose of the proposal is revalorisation. As regards the possibility that the increase of minimum excise duty rates generated inflation, it certainly did not do that: it is a compensation for the inflation that has already taken place.
To the argument that it can increase the black economy, I say that the lack or abolition of excise duty can generate smuggling and cross-border shopping which has nothing to do with fair competition at all.
Finally, as far as the Czech breweries and consumers are concerned, they will not suffer because, in the Czech Republic, the current excise duty rate is much higher than the new common minimum rate will be after the increase."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples