Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-24-Speech-2-386"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech⁶
dcterms:Date	"2006-10-24"^^xsd:date⁶
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Dumpingu- ja subsiidiumidevastaste ning kaitsemeetmete rakendamine kolmandate riikide poolt (2004) (arutelu)⁶
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language⁶
lpv:document identification number	"en.20061024.38.2-386"⁶
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-10-24-Speech-2-387⁶
lpv:speaker	lp:Syed Kamall⁶
lpv:spoken text	"Mr President, I welcome the general tone of both the Commission’s and Mrs Muscardini’s reports in wanting to see a world trading system that is as open and fair as possible. However, when we consider the anti-dumping measures of third countries, we in the Community need to show moral leadership and avoid hypocrisy. We can agree that trade defence mechanisms are often used as an excuse to protect domestic markets from competition; but we should also admit that the EU is sometimes guilty of using these mechanisms to protect uncompetitive companies from non-EU providers – shoes and textiles being recent examples. Fortunately, we continue to be sparing users of these mechanisms. With the potential collapse of the Doha development round, we must work with our trading partners to ensure that their legislation and practices comply as far as possible with WTO rules. However, to have any moral authority in this area, our own anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations must be transparent and impartial. I am concerned about the call for a Community approach to defend exporting SMEs faced with protectionism abroad. During last year’s ‘bra wars’, it was a so-called Community approach that suspended imports from China and caused SMEs in London’s fashion industry to lose contracts and to provide compensation to clients left waiting for unfulfilled orders. If that is a Community approach, then we in London want to see less of it. When it comes to arbitration, I think we all agree that any ad hoc arbitration group should consist of relevant experts. But we must ensure that any experts serving on these groups are experts in the sector being investigated who understand the structure of the industry and costs involved, not simply experts in more general trade issues. Overall, I would like to congratulate both the Commission and the rapporteur on this report."@en⁴
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP-ED (2005-05-12--2009-07-13)²² substitute; Delegation for relations with Canada (2005-06-13--2007-03-13)²² member; INTA (2005-10-27--2007-01-14)²² unknown; Conservative and Unionist Party (2005-05-12--2009-07-13)²² substitute; ECON (2005-06-13--2007-01-14)²² substitute; IMCO (2005-06-13--2007-01-14)²²
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I welcome the general tone of both the Commission’s and Mrs Muscardini’s reports in wanting to see a world trading system that is as open and fair as possible. However, when we consider the anti-dumping measures of third countries, we in the Community need to show moral leadership and avoid hypocrisy. We can agree that trade defence mechanisms are often used as an excuse to protect domestic markets from competition; but we should also admit that the EU is sometimes guilty of using these mechanisms to protect uncompetitive companies from non-EU providers – shoes and textiles being recent examples. Fortunately, we continue to be sparing users of these mechanisms. With the potential collapse of the Doha development round, we must work with our trading partners to ensure that their legislation and practices comply as far as possible with WTO rules. However, to have any moral authority in this area, our own anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations must be transparent and impartial. I am concerned about the call for a Community approach to defend exporting SMEs faced with protectionism abroad. During last year’s ‘bra wars’, it was a so-called Community approach that suspended imports from China and caused SMEs in London’s fashion industry to lose contracts and to provide compensation to clients left waiting for unfulfilled orders. If that is a Community approach, then we in London want to see less of it. When it comes to arbitration, I think we all agree that any ad hoc arbitration group should consist of relevant experts. But we must ensure that any experts serving on these groups are experts in the sector being investigated who understand the structure of the industry and costs involved, not simply experts in more general trade issues. Overall, I would like to congratulate both the Commission and the rapporteur on this report."@cs¹ "Hr. formand, jeg glæder mig over den generelle tone i både Kommissionens og fru Muscardinis betænkning og intentionerne om at få et verdenshandelssystem, der er så åbent og retfærdigt som muligt. Men når vi overvejer tredjelandes antidumpingforanstaltninger, skal vi i EU udvise moralsk ledelse og undgå hykleri. Vi kan blive enige om, at handelsforsvarsmekanismer ofte bruges som undskyldning for at beskytte hjemmemarkeder mod konkurrence, men vi må også indrømme, at EU undertiden bruger disse mekanismer til at beskytte ikkekonkurrencedygtige virksomheder mod udbydere uden for EU, hvor sko og tekstil er nylige eksempler. Heldigvis skåner vi fortsat brugerne for disse mekanismer. Med det potentielle sammenbrud af Doha-udviklingsrunden skal vi samarbejde med vores handelspartnere om at sikre, at deres lovgivning og praksis så vidt muligt overholder WTO-reglerne. Men for at have nogen som helst moralsk bemyndigelse på dette område, skal vores egne antidumping- og antitilskudsundersøgelser være gennemsigtige og upartiske. Jeg er bekymret over kravet om en EU-holdning til forsvaret af eksporterende smv'er, der mødes af protektionisme i udlandet. Under sidste års "bh-krig" var det en såkaldt EU-holdning, der blokerede importen fra Kina og fik små smv'er i Londons modeindustri til at miste kontrakter og udbetale kompensation til kunder, der ikke kunne få de bestilte varer. Hvis det er en EU-holdning, så ser vi i London gerne mindre af den. Når det handler om voldgift, er vi sikkert alle enige om, at enhver ad-hoc voldgiftsgruppe skal bestå af relevante eksperter. Men vi skal sørge for, at de eksperter, der er med i sådanne grupper, er eksperter i den pågældende sektor, som forstår industriens struktur og de tilhørende omkostninger, og at de ikke kun er eksperter i mere generelle handelsspørgsmål. I det store og hele vil jeg gerne lykønske både Kommissionen og ordføreren med denne betænkning."@da² ". Herr Präsident! Ich begrüße den Tenor sowohl des Berichts der Kommission als auch des Berichts von Frau Muscardini, die ein möglichst offenes und faires Welthandelssystem befürworten. Wenn wir jedoch an die Antidumpingmaßnahmen von Drittländern denken, müssen wir in der Gemeinschaft die moralische Führung übernehmen und Heuchelei vermeiden. Wir können dem zustimmen, dass Handelsschutzmechanismen häufig als Vorwand benutzt werden, um heimische Märkte vor Konkurrenz zu schützen; aber wir sollten auch zugeben, dass die EU sich mitunter der Verwendung dieser Mechanismen zum Schutz nicht wettbewerbsfähiger Unternehmen vor Anbietern aus Drittländern schuldig macht, wofür Schuhe und Textilien aktuelle Beispiele sind. Glücklicherweise setzen wir diese Mechanismen immer noch sehr sparsam ein. Angesichts des möglichen Scheiterns der Doha-Entwicklungsrunde müssen wir mit unseren Handelspartnern zusammenarbeiten, um sicherzustellen, dass ihre Rechtsvorschriften und Praktiken weitestgehend den WTO-Regeln entsprechen. Um aber in diesen Bereichen eine moralische Autorität zu haben, müssen unsere eigenen Untersuchungen über Antidumping- und Antisubventionsmaßnahmen transparent und unparteiisch durchgeführt werden. Besorgt stimmt mich die Forderung nach einem „Gemeinschaftsansatz“, um die kleinen und mittelständischen europäischen Exportunternehmen zu schützen, die sich im Ausland mit Protektionismus auseinandersetzen müssen. Während der „Büstenhalter-Kriege“ im letzten Jahr gab es einen „Gemeinschaftsansatz“ zur Unterbindung von Importen aus China, was dazu führte, dass KMU in der Londoner Modebranche Verträge verloren und Kunden Entschädigungen leisteten, die auf unerledigte Aufträge warten mussten. Wenn das ein Gemeinschaftsansatz ist, dann wollen wir in London weniger davon. Wenn es zur Schlichtung kommt, sind wir uns wohl alle einig, dass eine Ad-hoc-Schiedsinstanz aus ausgewiesenen Experten gebildet werden sollte. Aber wir müssen dafür sorgen, dass die in dieser Instanz tätigen Experten Fachleute auf dem untersuchten Sektor sind, die sich mit der Struktur der Industrie und den verbundenen Kosten auskennen, nicht einfach nur Fachleute für allgemeinere Handelsfragen. Alles in allem möchte ich sowohl der Kommission als auch der Berichterstatterin zu diesem Bericht gratulieren."@de⁹ "Κύριε Πρόεδρε, επικροτώ το γενικό πνεύμα που διέπει τις εκθέσεις τόσο της Επιτροπής όσο και της κ. Muscardini, που θέλουν να δουν ένα παγκόσμιο εμπορικό σύστημα όσο το δυνατόν πιο ανοιχτό και θεμιτό. Ωστόσο, όταν εξετάζουμε τα μέτρα αντιντάμπινγκ τρίτων χωρών, εμείς στην Κοινότητα πρέπει να επιδεικνύουμε ηθική ηγεσία και να αποφεύγουμε την υποκρισία. Μπορούμε να συμφωνήσουμε ότι οι μηχανισμοί εμπορικής άμυνας χρησιμοποιούνται συχνά ως πρόφαση για την προστασία των εγχώριων αγορών από τον ανταγωνισμό· θα πρέπει, όμως να παραδεχτούμε και ότι η ΕΕ κάνει ορισμένες φορές χρήση αυτών των μηχανισμών για την προστασία μη ανταγωνιστικών εταιρειών από πάροχους εκτός ΕΕ – η υπόδηση και η υφαντουργία αποτελούν πρόσφατα παραδείγματα. Ευτυχώς, εξακολουθούμε να μην υποβάλλουμε τους χρήστες σε αυτούς τους μηχανισμούς. Με την πιθανή κατάρρευση του αναπτυξιακού γύρου της Ντόχα, πρέπει να συνεργαστούμε με τους εμπορικούς εταίρους μας για να διασφαλίσουμε ότι η νομοθεσία και οι πρακτικές τους συμμορφώνονται κατά το δυνατόν με τους κανόνες του ΠΟΕ. Ωστόσο, προκειμένου να προβάλλουμε το ηθικό μας ανάστημα σε αυτόν τον τομέα, οι δικές μας έρευνες αντιντάμπινγκ και αντεπιδοτήσεων πρέπει να είναι διαφανείς και αμερόληπτες. Με προβληματίζει η έκκληση για μια κοινοτική προσέγγιση προς υπεράσπιση εξαγωγικών ΜΜΕ που αντιμετωπίζουν προστατευτισμό στο εξωτερικό. Κατά τον περσινό «πόλεμο του στηθόδεσμου», μια αποκαλούμενη κοινοτική προσέγγιση ήταν αυτή που διέκοψε τις εισαγωγές από την Κίνα και είχε ως αποτέλεσμα η βιομηχανία μόδας στο Λονδίνο να χάσει συμβόλαια και να αποζημιώσει πελάτες οι οποίοι περίμεναν ανεκπλήρωτες παραγγελίες. Αν αυτή είναι κοινοτική προσέγγιση, τότε εμείς στο Λονδίνο θέλουμε λιγότερη. Όσον αφορά στη διαιτησία, πιστεύω ότι όλοι συμφωνούμε ότι κάθε ομάδα διαιτησίας θα πρέπει να αποτελείται από εμπειρογνώμονες του τομέα. Πρέπει, όμως, να διασφαλίσουμε ότι οι εμπειρογνώμονες που προσφέρουν τις υπηρεσίες τους σε αυτές τις ομάδες είναι εμπειρογνώμονες του κλάδου που διερευνάται, οι οποίοι κατανοούν τη δομή της βιομηχανίας και το κόστος που συνεπάγεται, και όχι απλώς εμπειρογνώμονες σε γενικότερα εμπορικά θέματα. Γενικά, θα ήθελα να συγχαρώ τόσο την Επιτροπή όσο και την εισηγήτρια για αυτήν την έκθεση."@el¹⁰ ". Señor Presidente, me complace el tono general de los informes tanto de la Comisión como de la señora Muscardini en su deseo de ver un sistema de comercio internacional tan abierto y justo como sea posible. Sin embargo, cuando examinamos las medidas antidúmping adoptadas por terceros países, es necesario que nosotros, en la Comunidad, mostremos capacidad de liderazgo moral y evitemos la hipocresía. Podemos admitir que los mecanismos de defensa comercial suelen utilizarse como excusa para proteger los mercados nacionales de la competencia; pero debemos admitir también que la UE es en ocasiones culpable de utilizar esos mecanismos para proteger a empresas poco competitivas frente a los proveedores de fuera de la UE, con el calzado y los textiles como ejemplos recientes. Por fortuna, seguimos haciendo un uso moderado de esos mecanismos. Con el posible fracaso de la ronda de desarrollo de Doha, tenemos que trabajar con nuestros sociales comerciales para conseguir que su legislación y sus prácticas respeten en la medida de lo posible las reglas de la OMC. Pero para tener autoridad moral en este terreno, nuestras propias investigaciones antidúmping y antisubvenciones tienen que ser transparentes e imparciales. Me preocupa la petición de una solución comunitaria para defender a las PYME exportadoras frente al proteccionismo en el extranjero. En las «guerras de los sujetadores» del año pasado, fue precisamente una llamada solución comunitaria la que suspendió las importaciones de China e hizo que las PYME del sector de la moda londinense perdieran contratos y tuvieran que indemnizar a clientes que se quedaron esperando unos pedidos nunca servidos. Si esa es una solución comunitaria, en Londres queremos menos soluciones de ese tipo. En cuanto al arbitraje, creo que todos estamos de acuerdo en que cualquier grupo de arbitraje debe estar formado por expertos en la materia. Pero tenemos que asegurarnos de que los expertos que formen parte de esos grupos sean expertos en el sector investigado que conozcan la estructura de la industria y los costes incurridos, no simplemente expertos en cuestiones comerciales más generales. En términos generales, quiero felicitar tanto a la Comisión como a la ponente de este informe."@es²⁰ "Mr President, I welcome the general tone of both the Commission’s and Mrs Muscardini’s reports in wanting to see a world trading system that is as open and fair as possible. However, when we consider the anti-dumping measures of third countries, we in the Community need to show moral leadership and avoid hypocrisy. We can agree that trade defence mechanisms are often used as an excuse to protect domestic markets from competition; but we should also admit that the EU is sometimes guilty of using these mechanisms to protect uncompetitive companies from non-EU providers – shoes and textiles being recent examples. Fortunately, we continue to be sparing users of these mechanisms. With the potential collapse of the Doha development round, we must work with our trading partners to ensure that their legislation and practices comply as far as possible with WTO rules. However, to have any moral authority in this area, our own anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations must be transparent and impartial. I am concerned about the call for a Community approach to defend exporting SMEs faced with protectionism abroad. During last year’s ‘bra wars’, it was a so-called Community approach that suspended imports from China and caused SMEs in London’s fashion industry to lose contracts and to provide compensation to clients left waiting for unfulfilled orders. If that is a Community approach, then we in London want to see less of it. When it comes to arbitration, I think we all agree that any ad hoc arbitration group should consist of relevant experts. But we must ensure that any experts serving on these groups are experts in the sector being investigated who understand the structure of the industry and costs involved, not simply experts in more general trade issues. Overall, I would like to congratulate both the Commission and the rapporteur on this report."@et⁵ "Arvoisa puhemies, pidän myönteisenä sekä komission tiedonannon että jäsen Muscardinin mietinnön yleistä sävyä. Näissä asiakirjoissa asetetaan tavoitteeksi mahdollisimman avoin ja oikeudenmukainen maailmankauppajärjestelmä. Tarkastellessamme yhteisön ulkopuolisten maiden toteuttamia polkumyynnin vastaisia toimenpiteitä meidän yhteisön jäsenten on kuitenkin osoitettava moraalista johtajuutta ja vältettävä tekopyhyyttä. Voimme olla samaa mieltä siitä, että kaupan suojamekanismeja käytetään usein verukkeena kotimarkkinoiden suojelemiseen kilpailulta. Meidän on kuitenkin myös syytä myöntää, että EU syyllistyy toisinaan näiden mekanismien käyttöön kilpailukyvyttömien yritysten suojelemiseksi yhteisön ulkopuolisilta toimittajilta, mistä tuoreimpia esimerkkejä ovat jalkineet ja tekstiilit. Onneksi käytämme kyseisiä mekanismeja edelleen säästeliäästi. Dohan kehityskierroksen mahdollinen epäonnistuminen huomioon ottaen meidän on tehtävä yhteistyötä kauppakumppaneidemme kanssa varmistaaksemme, että niiden lainsäädäntö ja käytännöt vastaavat mahdollisimman pitkälle WTO:n sääntöjä. Jotta meillä kuitenkin olisi moraalista auktoriteettia tällä alalla, omien polkumyynnin ja tukien vastaisia toimenpiteitä koskevien tutkimustemme on oltava avoimia ja puolueettomia. Olen huolestunut vaatimuksesta kehittää yhteisön lähestymistapa sellaisten vientiä harjoittavien pk-yritysten puolustamiseksi, jotka kohtaavat protektionismia yhteisön ulkopuolella. Viimevuotisen "rintaliivisodan" aikana niin sanottu yhteisön lähestymistapa johti Kiinasta suuntautuvan tuonnin keskeyttämiseen, jolloin Lontoon muotiteollisuudessa toimivat pk-yritykset menettivät sopimuksia ja maksoivat korvauksia asiakkaille, jotka jäivät odottamaan toimittamatta jääneitä tilauksia. Jos tämä on yhteisön lähestymistapa, me Lontoossa haluamme vähemmän tällaisia toimia. Sovittelun osalta olemme uskoakseni kaikki yhtä mieltä siitä, että minkä tahansa väliaikaisen sovitteluryhmän pitäisi koostua alan asiantuntijoista. Meidän on kuitenkin varmistettava, että sovitteluryhmissä toimivat asiantuntijat ovat tutkittavana olevan alan asiantuntijoita, jotka ymmärtävät teollisuuden rakennetta ja siihen liittyviä kustannuksia, eivät pelkästään asiantuntijoita yleisemmissä kauppakysymyksissä. Yleisesti ottaen haluan kiittää sekä komissiota sen vuosikertomuksesta että esittelijää tästä mietinnöstä."@fi⁷ ". Monsieur le Président, je me félicite du ton général du rapport de la Commission et de celui de Mme Muscardini, qui veulent voir un système de commerce international qui soit aussi ouvert et équitable que possible. Néanmoins, lorsque nous examinons les mesures antidumping de pays tiers, nous, au sein de la Communauté, devons faire preuve d’une autorité morale et éviter l’hypocrisie. Nous pouvons admettre que les mécanismes de défense commerciale servent souvent de prétexte à la protection des marchés nationaux face à la concurrence, mais nous devrions également reconnaître que l’UE se rend parfois coupable d’utiliser ces mesures pour protéger des entreprises non compétitives face à des fournisseurs qui ne se trouvent pas dans l’UE, les chaussures et les textiles étant des exemples récents. Heureusement, nous restons des utilisateurs modérés de ces mécanismes. Étant donné l’échec possible du cycle de développement de Doha, nous devons travailler avec nos partenaires commerciaux de façon à nous assurer que leur législation et leurs pratiques sont autant que possible conformes aux règles de l’OMC. Cependant, pour que nous ayons une autorité morale dans ce domaine, nos propres enquêtes antidumping et antisubventions doivent être transparentes et impartiales. Je m’inquiète de la demande d’une approche communautaire visant à défendre les PME exportatrices qui doivent affronter des mesures de protectionnisme à l’étranger. Durant les «guerres des soutiens-gorge» de l’année dernière, c’est une approche dite communautaire qui a mené à la suspension d’importations venant de Chine et à la perte de contrats par des PME de l’industrie londonienne de la mode, celles-ci ayant dû dédommager les clients qui attendaient des commandes non satisfaites. Si c’est ce que l’on appelle une approche communautaire, les Londoniens veulent en voir moins. En ce qui concerne l’arbitrage, je pense que nous nous accordons tous à dire que tout groupe d’arbitrage ad hoc devrait se composer d’experts compétents. Toutefois, nous devons nous assurer que tous les experts travaillant dans ces groupes sont des experts qui sont spécialisés dans le secteur faisant l’objet d’une enquête et qui comprennent la structure de l’industrie et des coûts concernés, et non simplement des experts en questions commerciales générales. Dans l’ensemble, je voudrais féliciter la Commission et le rapporteur pour ce rapport."@fr⁸ "Mr President, I welcome the general tone of both the Commission’s and Mrs Muscardini’s reports in wanting to see a world trading system that is as open and fair as possible. However, when we consider the anti-dumping measures of third countries, we in the Community need to show moral leadership and avoid hypocrisy. We can agree that trade defence mechanisms are often used as an excuse to protect domestic markets from competition; but we should also admit that the EU is sometimes guilty of using these mechanisms to protect uncompetitive companies from non-EU providers – shoes and textiles being recent examples. Fortunately, we continue to be sparing users of these mechanisms. With the potential collapse of the Doha development round, we must work with our trading partners to ensure that their legislation and practices comply as far as possible with WTO rules. However, to have any moral authority in this area, our own anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations must be transparent and impartial. I am concerned about the call for a Community approach to defend exporting SMEs faced with protectionism abroad. During last year’s ‘bra wars’, it was a so-called Community approach that suspended imports from China and caused SMEs in London’s fashion industry to lose contracts and to provide compensation to clients left waiting for unfulfilled orders. If that is a Community approach, then we in London want to see less of it. When it comes to arbitration, I think we all agree that any ad hoc arbitration group should consist of relevant experts. But we must ensure that any experts serving on these groups are experts in the sector being investigated who understand the structure of the industry and costs involved, not simply experts in more general trade issues. Overall, I would like to congratulate both the Commission and the rapporteur on this report."@hu¹¹ ". Signor Presidente, accolgo con favore il tono generale delle relazioni sia della Commissione sia dell’onorevole Muscardini, che ambiscono a un sistema mondiale di scambi che sia quanto più possibile aperto ed equo. Tuttavia, quando consideriamo le misure dei paesi terzi, noi della Comunità dobbiamo dar prova di morale ed evitare l’ipocrisia. Conveniamo sul fatto che i meccanismi di difesa commerciale vengono spesso accampati come scusa per proteggere i mercati nazionali dalla concorrenza; dovremmo tuttavia ammettere che anche l’UE a volte ricorre a tali meccanismi per proteggere le imprese non competitive dai fornitori terzi – le calzature e il tessile sono gli esempi più recenti. Fortunatamente, continuiamo a essere utilizzatori moderati di tali meccanismi. Alla luce del potenziale fallimento dei negoziati di Doha per lo sviluppo, dobbiamo collaborare con i nostri commerciali per garantire che la loro legislazione e le loro pratiche siano quanto più possibile conformi alle regole dell’OMC. Tuttavia, per acquisire autorità morale nel settore, le nostre indagini in materia di e antisovvenzioni devono essere trasparenti e imparziali. Mi preoccupa la richiesta di un approccio comunitario per difendere le PMI dedite all’esportazione dal protezionismo estero. Durante le “guerre dei reggiseni” dello scorso anno, è stato un cosiddetto approccio comunitario a sospendere le importazioni dalla Cina e a causare alle PMI londinesi del settore della moda la perdita di contratti e la necessità di compensare i clienti per gli ordini inevasi. Se questo è un esempio di approccio comunitario, noi a Londra vogliamo averci a che fare il meno possibile. In materia di arbitrato, ritengo di esprimere l’opinione di tutti quando affermo che un eventuale gruppo arbitrale debba essere composto da esperti del settore. Dobbiamo tuttavia garantire che gli esperti che partecipano a tali gruppi siano effettivamente competenti nel settore oggetto dell’arbitrato e comprendano la struttura dell’industria e i costi associati, e non siano semplicemente esperti in questioni commerciali più generali. Nel complesso, vorrei congratularmi con la Commissione e con la relatrice per la relazione presentata."@it¹² "Mr President, I welcome the general tone of both the Commission’s and Mrs Muscardini’s reports in wanting to see a world trading system that is as open and fair as possible. However, when we consider the anti-dumping measures of third countries, we in the Community need to show moral leadership and avoid hypocrisy. We can agree that trade defence mechanisms are often used as an excuse to protect domestic markets from competition; but we should also admit that the EU is sometimes guilty of using these mechanisms to protect uncompetitive companies from non-EU providers – shoes and textiles being recent examples. Fortunately, we continue to be sparing users of these mechanisms. With the potential collapse of the Doha development round, we must work with our trading partners to ensure that their legislation and practices comply as far as possible with WTO rules. However, to have any moral authority in this area, our own anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations must be transparent and impartial. I am concerned about the call for a Community approach to defend exporting SMEs faced with protectionism abroad. During last year’s ‘bra wars’, it was a so-called Community approach that suspended imports from China and caused SMEs in London’s fashion industry to lose contracts and to provide compensation to clients left waiting for unfulfilled orders. If that is a Community approach, then we in London want to see less of it. When it comes to arbitration, I think we all agree that any ad hoc arbitration group should consist of relevant experts. But we must ensure that any experts serving on these groups are experts in the sector being investigated who understand the structure of the industry and costs involved, not simply experts in more general trade issues. Overall, I would like to congratulate both the Commission and the rapporteur on this report."@lt¹⁴ "Mr President, I welcome the general tone of both the Commission’s and Mrs Muscardini’s reports in wanting to see a world trading system that is as open and fair as possible. However, when we consider the anti-dumping measures of third countries, we in the Community need to show moral leadership and avoid hypocrisy. We can agree that trade defence mechanisms are often used as an excuse to protect domestic markets from competition; but we should also admit that the EU is sometimes guilty of using these mechanisms to protect uncompetitive companies from non-EU providers – shoes and textiles being recent examples. Fortunately, we continue to be sparing users of these mechanisms. With the potential collapse of the Doha development round, we must work with our trading partners to ensure that their legislation and practices comply as far as possible with WTO rules. However, to have any moral authority in this area, our own anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations must be transparent and impartial. I am concerned about the call for a Community approach to defend exporting SMEs faced with protectionism abroad. During last year’s ‘bra wars’, it was a so-called Community approach that suspended imports from China and caused SMEs in London’s fashion industry to lose contracts and to provide compensation to clients left waiting for unfulfilled orders. If that is a Community approach, then we in London want to see less of it. When it comes to arbitration, I think we all agree that any ad hoc arbitration group should consist of relevant experts. But we must ensure that any experts serving on these groups are experts in the sector being investigated who understand the structure of the industry and costs involved, not simply experts in more general trade issues. Overall, I would like to congratulate both the Commission and the rapporteur on this report."@lv¹³ "Mr President, I welcome the general tone of both the Commission’s and Mrs Muscardini’s reports in wanting to see a world trading system that is as open and fair as possible. However, when we consider the anti-dumping measures of third countries, we in the Community need to show moral leadership and avoid hypocrisy. We can agree that trade defence mechanisms are often used as an excuse to protect domestic markets from competition; but we should also admit that the EU is sometimes guilty of using these mechanisms to protect uncompetitive companies from non-EU providers – shoes and textiles being recent examples. Fortunately, we continue to be sparing users of these mechanisms. With the potential collapse of the Doha development round, we must work with our trading partners to ensure that their legislation and practices comply as far as possible with WTO rules. However, to have any moral authority in this area, our own anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations must be transparent and impartial. I am concerned about the call for a Community approach to defend exporting SMEs faced with protectionism abroad. During last year’s ‘bra wars’, it was a so-called Community approach that suspended imports from China and caused SMEs in London’s fashion industry to lose contracts and to provide compensation to clients left waiting for unfulfilled orders. If that is a Community approach, then we in London want to see less of it. When it comes to arbitration, I think we all agree that any ad hoc arbitration group should consist of relevant experts. But we must ensure that any experts serving on these groups are experts in the sector being investigated who understand the structure of the industry and costs involved, not simply experts in more general trade issues. Overall, I would like to congratulate both the Commission and the rapporteur on this report."@mt¹⁵ "Mijnheer de Voorzitter, ik ben blij met de algemene teneur van de verslagen van de Commissie en van mevrouw Muscardini, waaruit blijkt dat zij streven naar een zo open en zo correct mogelijk wereldhandelssysteem. Wanneer wij als Gemeenschap naar de antidumpingmaatregelen van derde landen kijken, dienen wij echter moreel leiderschap te tonen en hypocrisie te vermijden. We zijn het erover eens dat handelsbeschermingsmechanismen vaak gebruikt worden als een excuus om binnenlandse markten van concurrentie te vrijwaren; we moeten echter ook toegeven dat de EU soms via deze mechanismen niet-concurrerende bedrijven tegen ondernemingen buiten de EU beschermt, zoals onlangs in de sectoren schoenen en textiel is gebeurd. Gelukkig passen we deze mechanismen nog steeds spaarzaam toe. Omdat de Doha-ontwikkelingsronde mogelijk op een fiasco uitloopt, moeten we er met onze handelspartners aan werken dat hun wetgeving en praktijken zo veel mogelijk overeenstemmen met de WTO-regels. Willen we echter op dit gebied enig moreel gezag laten gelden, dan moeten onze eigen antidumping- en antisubsidieonderzoeken transparant en onpartijdig worden uitgevoerd. Ik maak mij zorgen over de oproep om de belangen van het op export gerichte MKB, dat het hoofd moet bieden aan protectionistische praktijken in het buitenland, via een communautaire aanpak te behartigen. Tijdens de "beha-oorlogen" van het afgelopen jaar zorgde een zogenaamde communautaire aanpak ervoor dat de invoer uit China werd opgeschort en dat middelgrote en kleine modebedrijven in Londen contracten kwijtraakten en klanten voor niet-uitgevoerde orders moesten compenseren. Als dat een communautaire aanpak is, willen we daar in Londen minder van zien. Wat betreft arbitrage zijn we het er volgens mij allemaal over eens dat elk ad-hocarbitrageorgaan uit deskundigen ter zake moet bestaan. We dienen er echter wel op toe te zien dat de experts die in dergelijke organen zitting nemen, deskundig zijn in de onderzochte sector en dat zij inzicht hebben in de structuur van die sector en in de kosten waar het om gaat. Deskundigen in meer algemene handelsvraagstukken zijn hiervoor niet geschikt. Over het algemeen wil ik zowel de Commissie als de rapporteur met dit verslag complimenteren."@nl^3,3 "Mr President, I welcome the general tone of both the Commission’s and Mrs Muscardini’s reports in wanting to see a world trading system that is as open and fair as possible. However, when we consider the anti-dumping measures of third countries, we in the Community need to show moral leadership and avoid hypocrisy. We can agree that trade defence mechanisms are often used as an excuse to protect domestic markets from competition; but we should also admit that the EU is sometimes guilty of using these mechanisms to protect uncompetitive companies from non-EU providers – shoes and textiles being recent examples. Fortunately, we continue to be sparing users of these mechanisms. With the potential collapse of the Doha development round, we must work with our trading partners to ensure that their legislation and practices comply as far as possible with WTO rules. However, to have any moral authority in this area, our own anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations must be transparent and impartial. I am concerned about the call for a Community approach to defend exporting SMEs faced with protectionism abroad. During last year’s ‘bra wars’, it was a so-called Community approach that suspended imports from China and caused SMEs in London’s fashion industry to lose contracts and to provide compensation to clients left waiting for unfulfilled orders. If that is a Community approach, then we in London want to see less of it. When it comes to arbitration, I think we all agree that any ad hoc arbitration group should consist of relevant experts. But we must ensure that any experts serving on these groups are experts in the sector being investigated who understand the structure of the industry and costs involved, not simply experts in more general trade issues. Overall, I would like to congratulate both the Commission and the rapporteur on this report."@pl¹⁶ "Senhor Presidente, saúdo o tom geral dos relatórios tanto da Comissão como da Senhora Deputada Muscardini, que desejam um sistema mundial de comércio que seja tão aberto e leal quanto possível. No entanto, se pensarmos nas medidas anti de países terceiros, é necessário que nós, na Comunidade, demos provas de liderança moral e evitemos a hipocrisia. Podemos concordar que os mecanismos de defesa comercial são frequentemente utilizados como pretexto para proteger os mercados internos contra a concorrência; mas devemos também admitir que a UE se deve considerar por vezes culpada de utilizar esses mecanismos para proteger empresas pouco competitivas contra fornecedores de países terceiros - o calçado e os têxteis são exemplos recentes. Felizmente, continuamos a utilizar os mecanismos em causa com moderação. Dada a ruptura potencial do ciclo de negociações sobre desenvolvimento de Doha, temos de trabalhar com os nossos parceiros comerciais com vista a assegurar que a sua legislação e práticas sejam tanto quanto possível compatíveis com as normas da OMC. No entanto, para podermos ter alguma autoridade moral nesta matéria, as nossas próprias investigações anti e anti-subvenções devem ser transparentes e imparciais. Preocupa-me o apelo no sentido de uma abordagem comunitária para defender as PME exportadoras que enfrentam medidas de proteccionismo no estrangeiro. Durante a "guerra dos soutiens" do ano passado, foi uma abordagem dita comunitária que suspendeu as importações da China levando as PME da indústria da moda londrina a perder contratos e a ter de compensar clientes cujas encomendas não foram entregues. Se é esta a abordagem comunitária, então em Londres não a desejamos. Relativamente à arbitragem, penso que todos concordamos que qualquer grupo de arbitragem tem de ser composto pelos peritos pertinentes. Mas temos de assegurar que os peritos incluídos nestes grupos sejam peritos em assuntos relacionados com o sector que está a ser investigado, que compreendam a estrutura da indústria e os custos em causa, e não simplesmente peritos em questões comerciais de carácter mais geral. De um modo geral, quero felicitar tanto a Comissão como o relator por este relatório."@pt¹⁷ "Mr President, I welcome the general tone of both the Commission’s and Mrs Muscardini’s reports in wanting to see a world trading system that is as open and fair as possible. However, when we consider the anti-dumping measures of third countries, we in the Community need to show moral leadership and avoid hypocrisy. We can agree that trade defence mechanisms are often used as an excuse to protect domestic markets from competition; but we should also admit that the EU is sometimes guilty of using these mechanisms to protect uncompetitive companies from non-EU providers – shoes and textiles being recent examples. Fortunately, we continue to be sparing users of these mechanisms. With the potential collapse of the Doha development round, we must work with our trading partners to ensure that their legislation and practices comply as far as possible with WTO rules. However, to have any moral authority in this area, our own anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations must be transparent and impartial. I am concerned about the call for a Community approach to defend exporting SMEs faced with protectionism abroad. During last year’s ‘bra wars’, it was a so-called Community approach that suspended imports from China and caused SMEs in London’s fashion industry to lose contracts and to provide compensation to clients left waiting for unfulfilled orders. If that is a Community approach, then we in London want to see less of it. When it comes to arbitration, I think we all agree that any ad hoc arbitration group should consist of relevant experts. But we must ensure that any experts serving on these groups are experts in the sector being investigated who understand the structure of the industry and costs involved, not simply experts in more general trade issues. Overall, I would like to congratulate both the Commission and the rapporteur on this report."@sk¹⁸ "Mr President, I welcome the general tone of both the Commission’s and Mrs Muscardini’s reports in wanting to see a world trading system that is as open and fair as possible. However, when we consider the anti-dumping measures of third countries, we in the Community need to show moral leadership and avoid hypocrisy. We can agree that trade defence mechanisms are often used as an excuse to protect domestic markets from competition; but we should also admit that the EU is sometimes guilty of using these mechanisms to protect uncompetitive companies from non-EU providers – shoes and textiles being recent examples. Fortunately, we continue to be sparing users of these mechanisms. With the potential collapse of the Doha development round, we must work with our trading partners to ensure that their legislation and practices comply as far as possible with WTO rules. However, to have any moral authority in this area, our own anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations must be transparent and impartial. I am concerned about the call for a Community approach to defend exporting SMEs faced with protectionism abroad. During last year’s ‘bra wars’, it was a so-called Community approach that suspended imports from China and caused SMEs in London’s fashion industry to lose contracts and to provide compensation to clients left waiting for unfulfilled orders. If that is a Community approach, then we in London want to see less of it. When it comes to arbitration, I think we all agree that any ad hoc arbitration group should consist of relevant experts. But we must ensure that any experts serving on these groups are experts in the sector being investigated who understand the structure of the industry and costs involved, not simply experts in more general trade issues. Overall, I would like to congratulate both the Commission and the rapporteur on this report."@sl¹⁹ "Herr talman! Jag välkomnar det allmänna tonläget i både kommissionens och Cristiana Muscardinis betänkanden om att vilja ha ett så öppet och rättvist världshandelssystem som möjligt. När det gäller tredjeländers antidumpningsåtgärder måste EU dock visa moraliskt ledarskap och undvika hyckleri. Vi kan hålla med om att handelspolitiska skyddsmekanismer ofta används som en ursäkt för att skydda inhemska marknader från konkurrens. Vi bör dock även erkänna att EU ibland gör sig skyldigt till att använda dessa mekanismer för att skydda företag med bristande konkurrenskraft från leverantörer utanför EU – den senaste tiden till exempel när det gäller skor och textil. Som tur är fortsätter vi att använda dessa mekanismer sparsamt. Det eventuella sammanbrottet av Doharundan för utveckling gör att vi måste arbeta med våra handelspartner för att se till att deras lagstiftning och metoder följer WTO-reglerna så långt det är möjligt. För att ha någon moralisk auktoritet på området måste vi dock själva ha öppna och opartiska antidumpnings- och antisubventionsutredningar. Jag är bekymrad över kravet på ett gemenskapsinitiativ för att skydda små och medelstora exportföretag som utsätts för protektionism utomlands. Under förra årets ”behåkrig” var det ett så kallat gemenskapsinitiativ som stoppade importen från Kina. Detta gjorde att små och medelstora företag inom modebranschen i London förlorade kontrakt och fick ersätta de kunder som fick vänta på beställningar som inte levererades. Om detta är ett EU-initiativ vill vi se mindre av dem i London. När det gäller skiljedomsförfaranden tror jag att vi alla håller med om att tillfälliga skiljedomsgrupper bör bestå av lämpliga experter. Vi måste dock se till att de experter som ingår i dessa grupper är experter i den sektor som utreds, som förstår branschens struktur och vilka kostnader det handlar om, och inte bara är experter i mer allmänna handelsfrågor. På det hela taget vill jag gratulera både kommissionen och föredraganden till detta betänkande."@sv²¹
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Syed Kamall,"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4} "ad hoc"^10,20,12,17 "antidumping"¹² "dumping"¹⁷ "on behalf of the PPE-DE Group"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4} "partner"¹²