Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-11-17-Speech-1-151"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081117.23.1-151"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this proposal for a directive, which is meant to replace the 1992 Directive, is above all intended to make the introduction, on 1 April 2009, of the electronic supervision of the movements of goods subject to excise duty – the famous Excise Movement and Control System – compliant with the legislation.
There is worse to come, however. The circumstantial majority in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has even rejected my amendment, which was to keep the duty-free purchase option for travellers whose final destination is a third country, in order to take account of the situation concerning connecting flights.
Why, if I am travelling to Singapore from Luxembourg, via Frankfurt or Paris, can I not buy duty-free in the airport of departure? I must say that this is rather depressing, Mr President; I would inform you that I have six minutes, but I will not use them all. I have confidence, now, in the good sense of most of our fellow Members – it is a pity that they are not here – to adopt a solution that is also in the interests of consumers and that does not re-invent new tax and bureaucratic barriers.
Those who vote against our reasonable proposals tomorrow will have difficulty in explaining this backward step to our compatriots. They can count on me and on my colleagues to denounce their rearguard views.
It is therefore a technical measure, but at the same time a step in the direction of less red tape, less fraud and more speed.
Apart from a few amendments, which I have tabled and which have been accepted, to guarantee more consistency in the operation of the new system, we are in agreement concerning this strand of the European Commission’s proposal.
In its view, the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy has made the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs’s report far more cumbersome by copying a large number of amendments negotiated within the Council. In fact, this move achieves nothing substantial as far as we are concerned.
The political debate lies elsewhere. It relates to the conditions of movement and taxation of goods subject to excise duty, in particular alcohol and tobacco purchased by private consumers. The European Commission has had the wisdom, for once, to submit a text that is based on recent case-law, that is to say, case-law that permits Europeans to transport goods subject to excise duty that are purchased in a Member State other than that of their residence, without quantitative restrictions, provided that the goods have been purchased for private consumption purposes.
My proposal and my position as rapporteur are unequivocal: I am wholly in favour of this Commission text, which is clear, precise and based on the principles governing the internal market. However, some of my fellow Members, socialists and liberals in particular, have felt obliged to table amendments that would re-instate tax frontiers such as those that existed before 1992, by re-introducing indicative limits.
The fact is, indicative limits in theory mean quantitative restrictions in reality. As a result of the absences, and taking advantage of the lack of knowledge of certain fellow Members, they have obtained a majority in committee. My political group has taken the unanimous decision to table amendments intended to re-establish the European Commission’s initial proposals. It is only fair that we do so. We do not want a return to borders and to practices such as those that existed before the single market.
On the contrary, we want solutions that are adapted to our time, including with regard to electronic trade. Our message to the Council must be clear: do not propose to our fellow citizens that we go back on the
.
What seems just as incomprehensible is the attitude of certain socialists and liberals who want to do away with the last remaining duty-free shops at the land borders of the European Union. The Commission wants this too, unfortunately, even though these shops in no way disrupt the single market. Their closure would lead, however, to thousands of job losses, in particular at Greece’s borders. We have really picked a good time to propose such things!"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples