Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-11-17-Speech-1-158"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081117.23.1-158"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner and Mrs Lulling, we meet again on this issue. Of course, it is not the first time we have come into conflict with each other, Mrs Lulling and I, on the form excise duty should take in Europe. However, it is probably the first time that I have felt that I am the one with the majority on my side. It is dangerous to pre-empt things, but we will see how it goes.
On the issue of the new technical system, EMCS, we are fully in agreement. It is on the sensitive issue of import quotas that our views seriously diverge.
If the committee’s approach is taken up, Parliament will have made clear both its commitment to freedom of movement in Europe and its commitment to encouraging the desire for a sensible public health policy. As always when it comes to tax-related issues it is necessary to find a balance between what should remain within a Member State’s competence and what is considered our common responsibility. If we vote through the Committee’s proposal it will mean that the European Parliament will establish that tobacco and alcohol are not the same as any other goods, just as we have previously heard in this House, and must be treated differently. This is, of course, nothing revolutionary, as many people have been saying this for a long time.
By deciding to halve the indicative import levels while at the same time retaining the principle of a limit, we are giving Member States a lot of room to conduct their own policy while at the same time the common legislation will make it easier for undertakings and individuals to conduct cross-border trade. Or to put it more simply: Sweden will be given room to prioritise public health issues while Lulling’s Luxembourg can continue its packaged low tax policy. The internal market cannot be built with alcohol tourism as its model.
Drunkenness and its consequences is not a Swedish problem, as I sometimes hear people say. Recently, we have heard demands for forceful measures to combat drunkenness in the United Kingdom, something that the British Members should also think about perhaps. I think that it is high time that the European Parliament took a more sensible view of these issues and gave Member States the opportunity to take action in the direction of public health."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples