Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-11-17-Speech-1-154"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2008-11-17"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:General arrangements for excise duty (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"pt"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20081117.23.1-154"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2008-11-17-Speech-1-1552
lpv:speaker	lp:Manuel dos Santos2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 vice-president; European Parliament (2007-01-16--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation to the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly (2007-05-23--2009-07-13)3 member; ECON (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; PES (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 vice-president; Parliament's Bureau (2007-01-16--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Partido Socialista (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; ITRE (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation for relations with the Maghreb countries and the Arab Maghreb Union (including Libya) (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"I am going to use the first of my two minutes to quickly highlight the main principles of my opinion, which was unanimously adopted in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. These principles are as follows: increase efficiency in production and distribution of goods and services, mainly by reducing red tape; improve the existing rules and adapt them to the current circumstances, notably to facilitate risk-based monitoring procedures for national administrations; simplify procedures and increase transparency for intra-Community trade, by increasing legal certainty and fair rules; finally, the system for the collection and reimbursement of duty should not give rise to discriminatory criteria, and should avoid double taxation. These were the guiding principles of the opinion that I presented to the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on behalf of the Committee on Industry. I would repeat that there was broad consensus on the opinion within the Committee on Industry. That is why I must say, as a Member for the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, using my second minute, that I do not understand Mrs Lulling’s observation that the Socialist Group and the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe – and only they – introduced quantitative limits. It was not just the Socialist Group and the ALDE Group as, at least in the Committee on Industry, it was everyone, given that my opinion was unanimously adopted, as I said. I feel it is truly extraordinary that quantitative limits have not been included, as we know that this type of duty has various aims. Obviously the first is tax revenue, but there is also protection of public health. Of course, each country attaches a different level of importance to each of these two aims. I therefore feel that the solution we found (of defining quantitative limits) is a fair and balanced solution, which does not excessively benefit any country in particular. It also does not prejudice any of the countries which naturally have a different understanding from that of the country which Mrs Lulling represents and which I naturally respect. However, the wishes of that country obviously cannot be placed above the general wishes of the other countries of the European Union. My final comment in just 10 seconds is that the Socialist Group obviously supports the internal market and the expansion of the internal market and does not believe that the proposals adopted in either the Committee on Industry or the Committee on Economic Affairs may jeopardise the internal market."@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph