Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-04-18-Speech-3-493-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120418.25.3-493-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the debate on energy taxation in Europe should commence with the acknowledgement that tax harmonisation in the European Union has only ever made minor steps forwards. Therefore, in our position as tax advisor and not taxpayer, it would be illusory to call for a major overhaul of the tax system.
Ladies and gentlemen, the European Union is not an island, even less so in the global air and maritime transport sector. Moreover, I ask my colleagues what true sense there is in these political initiatives that lead to us shooting ourselves in the foot in terms of the competition, which is more than they could hope for.
To conclude, I have tried, within the framework of this report, to defend a realistic vision of things that is not opposed to progress. If this vision prevails, it would allow us to be heard by the Council, where, for that matter, a very large majority of Member States continue to have their reservations.
In my view, the European Parliament has an ever greater role to play in finding a compromise that is acceptable to as many Member States as possible, or even one that is acceptable to them all, as unanimous support in the Council is required, rather than in carrying out an exercise in style.
The draft directive, which has been submitted for our review, is much more than an update of the 2003 text. This time, it calls to support the aim of a low carbon economy, and by introducing a CO
based element, in order to advance the European Union’s commitments to combating climate change.
Can we contribute, by means of a tax system, to achieving these objectives? Maybe, but things are not as simple as some people have us believe.
I certainly support, as does my group, the Commission’s methodological approach, which seeks to tax energy on a dual basis, taking into account both their CO
emissions and energy content. This point was subject to a wide agreement within the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, as well as within other committees for opinion.
However, the other innovation, proportionality, has, on the other hand, been deeply divisive. It does not seem wise to me that Member States who set their rates higher than the minima should be forced to uphold the proportionality between the various applicable minimum thresholds for each type of energy. This slightly abstract term would have very tangible consequences and in general, this proportionality would lead to an increase in energy prices, which have already soared. More specifically, proportionality would lead to a substantial increase in the price of diesel in virtually all Member States, which would be required to replicate the new tax difference of 9% between diesel and petrol. Citing simply the example of Germany and France, the increase would exceed EUR 0.22 per litre of diesel.
A further consequence would be the increased cost of transporting people and goods, a sector that is wholly dependent on diesel, and the penalisation of the European automotive sector, which is a global leader in diesel technology.
Consequently, my group decided to reintroduce an amendment calling for the principle of proportionality to be scrapped. If, in the unlikely event, we are not successful tomorrow in scrapping this principle, we propose a second amendment, which is not my preferred option, of course, but which is the bottom line of what we deem acceptable. This would be the implementation of a very conditional proportionality that would only be applicable from 2030, that would only be introduced following the reassuring conclusions of an impact study, on European industrial competitiveness for example, and that would allow each Member State to maintain a distinction between commercial diesel and non-commercial diesel.
Mr President, allow me to speak for a little longer as I still have another point to cover, which is that of the exemption of air and maritime transport. Through an unhappy combination of circumstances, the amendment that was adopted by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs was the most extreme one. It calls for the end of the exclusion of air and maritime transport from the scope of the directive. Yet, the European Commission has clearly indicated that this full inclusion is not legally possible due to international conventions. Therefore, a return to the Commission’s original text is necessary."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"2"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples