Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-03-14-Speech-3-322"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070314.23.3-322"6
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, we have asked for this debate to examine the background and the purpose of the Green Paper adopted by the Commission on 6 December 2006.
This might be true. The recent footwear case has shown that the risk of deadlocks is real. They are clearly of no benefit to anybody. Nobody here is blindly defending inefficient European production or supporting a protectionist approach to this highly sensitive matter. Trade defence reform can be considered, if it is to be made more effective and more transparent.
The Green Paper can be a good starting point if all the stakeholders’ views are properly taken into consideration and if the Commission and the Council do not entrench themselves behind preconceived ideological positions. The decision-making process can also be improved and we need to ensure that decisions are taken by Member States based on the well-founded research carried out by independent Community bodies, rather than on the basis of national interests, or, if you prefer, national selfishness.
It is therefore important to improve and reinforce trade defence instruments instead of watering them down. On the other side, a fresh approach can be made to less traditional threats to a balanced and free world trade. Practices such as so-called social or environmental dumping need also to be confronted and, when necessary, new means of tackling them should be seriously considered as a matter of Community interest.
The following are the questions I would like Mr Mandelson to respond to tonight. Firstly, the Doha negotiations have been restarted and I sincerely hope that they will result in a clear success. In this respect, would it not have been better to wait for the successful conclusion of multilateral negotiations before starting this exercise, which might weaken our position in Geneva?
Secondly, can Mr Mandelson explain why his services are already applying quite a few questionable innovations mentioned in the Green Paper, even before the public consultation has come to an end and without any discussions either before the Council, or before this Parliament?
Thirdly, since the new trade defence system proposed by the Commission assigns a role to all possible interested parties, including those not related to the production of goods falling under the scope of the investigation, do you not believe that the time has come to allow trade unions to lodge a complaint, as foreseen by the WTO anti-dumping agreement?
I conclude by formally asking Mr Mandelson to provide assurances that the European Parliament will be kept informed at all stages of the process and that the views expressed by its members will be fully taken into account when discussing this highly sensitive matter.
With the Green Paper, the Commission intends to stimulate a debate over the use of trade defence instruments in Europe: countervailing, anti-dumping and safeguard measures. I believe that this is a commendable initiative and I am convinced of the value of this debate. We need to talk much more about trade policy and about the choices made by the European Commission and by the Council and we need to ensure that decisions are properly discussed before this Parliament. We need to give this Parliament more power and to make trade policy more subject to democratic scrutiny.
We are all living through a moment which many view as some sort of crisis period. We are living through a time when Europeans are asking themselves: what does Europe represent and why do we need such a complicated thing as the European Union in the first place? And, when these legitimate concerns are raised, the importance of the role of a united EU in the globalised world and the importance of having a single voice to represent and defend the interests of 500 million citizens in any negotiation with other trade partners in the world market are vital factors to be considered.
Global trade and its impact on the lives of our citizens and on the future of our businesses, big, medium-sized and small, play an essential role in the anxieties felt by many over what we usually call ‘globalisation’. And, while many of us believe that some of the criticism is no more than cheap demagogy, we must understand those anxieties and we must oppose pure determinism in the way this new world develops, in the way trade takes place, in the way wealth and poverty are distributed.
Europeans who lose their jobs when a company suddenly decides to move eastwards in search of higher profits cannot simply be told that times have changed and that they cannot stand in the way of progress. They want to know what is going on and they must have their voice heard by those that ultimately decide.
We should not forget that there is more than one recipe for economic growth and trade development. It is a matter of policy options whether the future of Europe belongs only to huge retail corporations and to importers or whether we can preserve a model compatible with our most essential social and environmental concerns.
Our strong belief in free trade is perfectly compatible with the need to ask for a level playing field. Even the most peaceful countries in the world – and Europe among them – know that a full commitment to peace does not necessarily mean that armies are abolished and all means of defence are to be destroyed.
So, we say yes to the huge benefits of free trade in our open world and we say yes to the fair implementation of the rules on which this global trade is based.
We welcome the Green Paper, which has the merit of opening a debate on this subject. Its text and the questions it raises already assume that something must be done to modify the current Community trade defence system."@en4
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, we have asked for this debate to examine the background and the purpose of the Green Paper adopted by the Commission on 6 December 2006.
This might be true. The recent footwear case has shown that the risk of deadlocks is real. They are clearly of no benefit to anybody. Nobody here is blindly defending inefficient European production or supporting a protectionist approach to this highly sensitive matter. Trade defence reform can be considered, if it is to be made more effective and more transparent.
The Green Paper can be a good starting point if all the stakeholders’ views are properly taken into consideration and if the Commission and the Council do not entrench themselves behind preconceived ideological positions. The decision-making process can also be improved and we need to ensure that decisions are taken by Member States based on the well-founded research carried out by independent Community bodies, rather than on the basis of national interests, or, if you prefer, national selfishness.
It is therefore important to improve and reinforce trade defence instruments instead of watering them down. On the other side, a fresh approach can be made to less traditional threats to a balanced and free world trade. Practices such as so-called social or environmental dumping need also to be confronted and, when necessary, new means of tackling them should be seriously considered as a matter of Community interest.
The following are the questions I would like Mr Mandelson to respond to tonight. Firstly, the Doha negotiations have been restarted and I sincerely hope that they will result in a clear success. In this respect, would it not have been better to wait for the successful conclusion of multilateral negotiations before starting this exercise, which might weaken our position in Geneva?
Secondly, can Mr Mandelson explain why his services are already applying quite a few questionable innovations mentioned in the Green Paper, even before the public consultation has come to an end and without any discussions either before the Council, or before this Parliament?
Thirdly, since the new trade defence system proposed by the Commission assigns a role to all possible interested parties, including those not related to the production of goods falling under the scope of the investigation, do you not believe that the time has come to allow trade unions to lodge a complaint, as foreseen by the WTO anti-dumping agreement?
I conclude by formally asking Mr Mandelson to provide assurances that the European Parliament will be kept informed at all stages of the process and that the views expressed by its members will be fully taken into account when discussing this highly sensitive matter.
With the Green Paper, the Commission intends to stimulate a debate over the use of trade defence instruments in Europe: countervailing, anti-dumping and safeguard measures. I believe that this is a commendable initiative and I am convinced of the value of this debate. We need to talk much more about trade policy and about the choices made by the European Commission and by the Council and we need to ensure that decisions are properly discussed before this Parliament. We need to give this Parliament more power and to make trade policy more subject to democratic scrutiny.
We are all living through a moment which many view as some sort of crisis period. We are living through a time when Europeans are asking themselves: what does Europe represent and why do we need such a complicated thing as the European Union in the first place? And, when these legitimate concerns are raised, the importance of the role of a united EU in the globalised world and the importance of having a single voice to represent and defend the interests of 500 million citizens in any negotiation with other trade partners in the world market are vital factors to be considered.
Global trade and its impact on the lives of our citizens and on the future of our businesses, big, medium-sized and small, play an essential role in the anxieties felt by many over what we usually call ‘globalisation’. And, while many of us believe that some of the criticism is no more than cheap demagogy, we must understand those anxieties and we must oppose pure determinism in the way this new world develops, in the way trade takes place, in the way wealth and poverty are distributed.
Europeans who lose their jobs when a company suddenly decides to move eastwards in search of higher profits cannot simply be told that times have changed and that they cannot stand in the way of progress. They want to know what is going on and they must have their voice heard by those that ultimately decide.
We should not forget that there is more than one recipe for economic growth and trade development. It is a matter of policy options whether the future of Europe belongs only to huge retail corporations and to importers or whether we can preserve a model compatible with our most essential social and environmental concerns.
Our strong belief in free trade is perfectly compatible with the need to ask for a level playing field. Even the most peaceful countries in the world – and Europe among them – know that a full commitment to peace does not necessarily mean that armies are abolished and all means of defence are to be destroyed.
So, we say yes to the huge benefits of free trade in our open world and we say yes to the fair implementation of the rules on which this global trade is based.
We welcome the Green Paper, which has the merit of opening a debate on this subject. Its text and the questions it raises already assume that something must be done to modify the current Community trade defence system."@cs1
".
Hr. formand! Vi har anmodet om denne forhandling for at undersøge baggrunden for og formålet med Kommissionens grønbog af 6. december 2006.
Det er muligvis rigtigt. Den seneste sag vedrørende fodtøj har vist, at der er en reel risiko for, at situationen går i hårdknude. Det er helt klart ikke til nogens fordel. Der er ingen her, der blindt forsvarer en ineffektiv europæisk produktion eller støtter en protektionistisk tilgang til dette meget følsomme spørgsmål. Vi kan overveje en reform af handelsbeskyttelsesinstrumenterne, hvis de gøres mere effektive og gennemsigtige.
Grønbogen kan være et godt udgangspunkt, hvis der tages behørigt hensyn til alle aktørernes synspunkter, og hvis Kommissionen og Rådet ikke forskanser sig bag forudfattede ideologiske holdninger. Beslutningsprocessen kan også forbedres, og vi er nødt til at sikre, at medlemsstaternes beslutninger er baseret på en velfunderet forskning gennemført af uafhængige fællesskabsorganer og ikke på nationale interesser, eller om De vil, national egoisme.
Det er således vigtigt at forbedre og styrke de handelspolitiske beskyttelsesinstrumenter i stedet for at udvande dem. Vi kan på den anden side også anlægge en ny indfaldsvinkel til mindre traditionelle trusler mod en afbalanceret og fri verdenshandel. Vi er også nødt til at tackle en praksis såsom social dumping og miljødumping, og vi bør i nødvendigt omfang overveje nye midler til at tackle denne praksis af hensyn til Fællesskabets interesser.
Jeg anmoder hr. Mandelson om at besvare følgende spørgsmål i aften. For det første er Doha-forhandlingerne blevet genoptaget, og jeg håber virkelig, at der vil blive skabt klare resultater. Ville det i denne forbindelse ikke have været mere hensigtsmæssigt at afvente en vellykket afslutning af de multilaterale forhandlinger, før disse forhandlinger blev indledt, idet de kan svække vores position i Genève?
Kan hr. Mandelson for det andet forklare, hvorfor hans tjenestegren allerede i dag gør brug af en række tvivlsomme innovative foranstaltninger, der er omtalt i grønbogen, selv om den offentlige høring endnu ikke er afsluttet, og selv om spørgsmålet endnu ikke er blevet drøftet i Rådet eller Parlamentet?
Mener De for det tredje ikke, at tiden er inde til at give fagforeningerne mulighed for at indgive klage i overensstemmelse med WTO's antidumpingaftale, i betragtning af at de nye handelspolitiske beskyttelsesinstrumenter, som Kommissionen foreslår, berører alle tænkelige interesseparter, herunder de parter, der ikke er involveret i produktionen af varer omfatter af undersøgelsen?
Jeg ønsker afslutningsvis formelt at anmode hr. Mandelson om at forsikre, at Parlamentet vil blive holdt underrettet i alle faser af processen, og at der vil blive taget fuldt hensyn til de af parlamentsmedlemmerne tilkendegivne synspunkter i forbindelse med drøftelsen af dette meget følsomme spørgsmål.
Kommissionen forsøger med denne grønbog at stimulere debatten om anvendelse af handelspolitiske beskyttelsesinstrumenter i Europa såsom udligningstold, antidumping og beskyttelsesforanstaltninger. Jeg mener, at det er et prisværdigt initiativ, og jeg er overbevist om nytten af denne debat. Vi bliver nødt til i langt højere grad at drøfte handelspolitiske spørgsmål og de valg, som Kommissionen og Rådet træffer, og vi er nødt til at sikre, at beslutningerne drøftes behørigt i Parlamentet. Vi er nødt til at give Parlamentet mere magt og at underlægge handelspolitikken demokratisk kontrol.
Vi gennemlever i øjeblikket en periode, der af mange opfattes som en krise. Vi gennemlever en periode, hvor europæerne stiller sig selv følgende spørgsmål: Hvad repræsenterer EU, og hvorfor har vi overhovedet brug for en konstruktion, der er så kompliceret som EU? Når disse berettigede bekymringer rejses, er det af afgørende betydning, at vi er opmærksom på betydningen af et forenet EU i en globaliseret verden og betydningen af at have én enkelt stemme til at repræsentere og forsvare 500 millioner borgeres interesser under forhandlinger med andre handelspartnere på verdensmarkedet.
Den globale handel og dens indvirkning på vores borgeres tilværelse og på vores store, mellemstore og små virksomheders fremtid er i høj grad en faktor, der medvirker til at øge den bekymring, som mange føler, i forhold til den såkaldte "globalisering". Selv om mange af os føler, at denne kritik til en vis grad kun er udtryk for billig demagogi, er vi nødt til at forstå denne bekymring, og vi er nødt til at modsætte os ren determinisme, når det gælder udviklingen af denne nye verden, måden, hvorpå denne handels foregår, og fordelingen af velstand og fattigdom.
Europæere, der mister deres arbejde, når en virksomhed pludselig beslutter sig til at flytte østpå af indtjeningsmæssige årsager, kan ikke blot spises af med, at tiderne har forandret sig, og at de ikke må stå i vejen for fremskridt. De ønsker at vide, hvad der sker, og de endelige beslutningstagere skal høre på dem.
Vi må ikke glemme, at der er flere veje til økonomisk vækst og handelsudvikling. Det er et politisk valg, om Europas fremtid kun skal tilhøre enorme detailvirksomheder og importører, eller om vi kan fastholde en model, der er forenelig med vores vigtigste sociale og miljømæssige ønsker.
Vores stærke ønske om frihandel er fuldt ud foreneligt med et nødvendigt krav om lige vilkår. Selv de fredeligste lande i verden - heriblandt de europæiske lande - ved, at en klar vilje til fred ikke nødvendigvis betyder, at alle hærstyrker nedlægges og at alle forsvarsmidler destrueres.
Vi siger derfor ja til de enorme fordele, der er forbundet med frihandel i vores åbne verden, og vi går ind for en retfærdig gennemførelse af de regler, som denne globale handel bygger på.
Vi glæder os over grønbogen, der giver anledning til en debat om dette spørgsmål. Ud fra ordlyden og de spørgsmål, der rejses, forudsættes det allerede, at der skal gøres noget for at ændre de eksisterende handelsbeskyttelsesinstrumenter i EU."@da2
".
Herr Präsident! Wir haben um diese Aussprache gebeten, um Hintergrund und Zweck des von der Kommission am 6. Dezember 2006 verabschiedeten Grünbuchs näher zu beleuchten.
Dies mag stimmen. Der aktuelle Fall im Zusammenhang mit Schuhimporten hat gezeigt, dass die Gefahr eines Stillstands nicht von der Hand zu weisen und natürlich für keine der Seiten von Vorteil ist. Niemand hier verteidigt blind ineffektive europäische Produktionsmethoden oder unterstützt in dieser schwierigen Frage einen protektionistischen Ansatz. Eine Reform der handelspolitischen Schutzinstrumente ist denkbar, um sie wirksamer und transparenter zu gestalten.
Das Grünbuch kann als guter Ausgangspunkt dienen, wenn die Ansichten aller Akteure ausreichend berücksichtigt werden und sich Kommission und Rat nicht hinter vorgefassten ideologischen Positionen verschanzen. Außerdem lässt sich der Entscheidungsprozess optimieren, und wir müssen sicherstellen, dass die Mitgliedstaaten Entscheidungen auf der Grundlage fundierter Studien durch unabhängige Gemeinschaftsgremien und nicht unter Berücksichtigung nationaler Interessen oder, wenn Sie so wollen, nationaler Egoismen treffen.
Es ist daher wichtig, die handelspolitischen Schutzinstrumente zu verbessern und zu stärken, anstatt sie zu verwässern. Andererseits ist auch ein neuer Ansatz bei weniger herkömmlichen Bedrohungen für einen ausgewogenen und freien Welthandel denkbar. Zudem müssen wir uns Praktiken wie dem so genannten Sozial- oder Umweltdumping entgegenstellen, und falls erforderlich sollten im Gemeinschaftsinteresse neue Gegenmaßnahmen ernsthaft in Betracht gezogen werden.
Ich wünsche mir von Herrn Mandelson heute Abend Antworten auf die folgenden Fragen: Erstens wurden die Doha-Verhandlungen wieder aufgenommen, und ich hoffe inständig, dass sie zu einem klaren Erfolg führen werden. Wäre es in diesem Zusammenhang nicht besser gewesen, vor der Wiederaufnahme, mit der unsere Position in Genf womöglich geschwächt wird, den erfolgreichen Abschluss der multilateralen Verhandlungen abzuwarten?
Zweitens, kann Herr Mandelson erklären, warum seine Dienststellen bereits vor Abschluss der öffentlichen Konsultation und ohne Erörterungen im Rat oder hier im Parlament einige fragwürdige Neuerungen umsetzen, die im Grünbuch erwähnt werden?
Drittens, sind Sie nicht der Auffassung, dass es an der Zeit ist, den Gewerkschaften die Möglichkeit einer Beschwerde gemäß dem WTO-Dumpingübereinkommen einzuräumen, da mit dem von der Kommission vorgeschlagenen neuen System handelspolitischer Schutzmaßnahmen allen denkbaren Akteuren, auch denjenigen, die nichts mit der Herstellung von Erzeugnissen zu tun haben, die für diese Untersuchung von Belang sind, eine Rolle zufällt?
Abschließend möchte ich Herrn Mandelson offiziell um seine Zusage bitten, dass das Europäische Parlament in allen Etappen des Prozesses auf dem Laufenden gehalten wird und dass die von seinen Mitgliedern geäußerten Meinungen uneingeschränkt berücksichtigt werden.
Die Kommission will mit dem Grünbuch eine Debatte über den Einsatz handelspolitischer Schutzinstrumente wie Ausgleich- oder Antidumpingmaßnahmen sowie Schutzklauseln in Europa auslösen. Diese Initiative ist meines Erachtens zu begrüßen, und ich halte diese Debatte für ausgesprochen sinnvoll. Wir müssen uns viel ausführlicher mit handelpolitischen Fragen und mit den Entscheidungen der Europäischen Kommission und des Rates befassen und sicherstellen, dass diese Entscheidungen von unserem Parlament sorgfältig erörtert werden. Das Parlament muss größere Befugnisse erhalten und die Handelspolitik einer stärkeren demokratischen Kontrolle unterziehen können.
Wir alle erleben derzeit eine Phase, die von vielen als Krise bezeichnet wird. Gegenwärtig fragen sich die Europäer, wofür Europa steht und warum wir überhaupt ein so kompliziertes Konstrukt wie die Europäische Union benötigen. Und angesichts dieser berechtigten Bedenken müssen wir uns unbedingt zentrale Faktoren wie den Stellenwert einer vereinten EU in der globalisierten Welt sowie die grundlegende Tatsache vor Augen führen, dass wir mit einer Stimme die Interessen von 500 Millionen Bürgern in den Verhandlungen mit anderen Handelspartnern auf dem Weltmarkt vertreten und verteidigen können.
Der Welthandel mit seinen Folgen für das Leben unserer Bürger und die Zukunft unserer großen, mittleren und kleinen Unternehmen ist eine wichtige Ursache für die Ängste, die viele Menschen vor der so genannten Globalisierung empfinden. Und auch, wenn viele von uns einen Teil der Kritik für billige Demagogie halten, müssen wir diese Ängste verstehen und uns der angeblichen Unvermeidlichkeit widersetzen, mit der sich diese neue Welt entwickelt, Handel getrieben wird und Wohlstand und Armut verteilt werden.
Es reicht nicht aus, wenn wir Europäern, die ihre Arbeitsplätze verlieren, weil ein Unternehmen plötzlich aus Gründen des Profitstrebens beschließt, in den Osten zu gehen, sagen, dass sich die Zeiten eben geändert hätten und sie sich nicht dem Fortschritt in den Weg stellen dürften. Sie wollen wissen, was vor sich geht, und müssen bei den endgültigen Entscheidungsträgern Gehör finden.
Wir dürfen nicht vergessen, dass es mehr als ein Rezept für Wirtschaftswachstum und Handelsentwicklung gibt. Es ist eine Frage der politischen Entscheidungen, ob die Zukunft Europas großen Handelskonzernen und Importeuren gehören wird oder wir ein Modell aufrechterhalten können, das mit unseren wichtigsten sozialen und ökologischen Belangen vereinbar ist.
Unser Festhalten am Freihandel steht keinesfalls im Widerspruch zu der notwendigen Forderung nach gleichen Spielregeln für alle. Selbst die friedfertigsten Länder der Welt – und Europa gehört in diesen Kreis – wissen, dass ein Eintreten für den Frieden nicht zwangsläufig bedeutet, dass Armeen abgeschafft und Verteidigungsmittel zerstört werden müssen.
Wir sagen also Ja zu den umfangreichen Vorteilen des Freihandels in unserer offenen Welt, und wir sagen Ja zu einer gerechten Durchsetzung der Regeln, auf denen dieser Welthandel beruht.
Wir begrüßen das Grünbuch, mit dem dankenswerterweise eine Debatte zu diesem Thema ausgelöst wird. Aus dem Text und den darin enthaltenen Fragestellungen geht bereits hervor, dass etwas unternommen werden muss, um das gegenwärtige System handelspolitischer Schutzmaßnahmen der Gemeinschaft zu ändern."@de9
".
Κύριε Πρόεδρε, ζητήσαμε τη διεξαγωγή αυτής της συζήτησης προκειμένου να εξεταστεί το υπόβαθρο και η σκοπιμότητα της Πράσινης Βίβλου την οποία ενέκρινε η Επιτροπή στις 6 Δεκεμβρίου 2006.
Αυτό μπορεί να είναι αλήθεια. Η πρόσφατη κρίση στον τομέα των υποδημάτων κατέδειξε ότι ο κίνδυνος αδιεξόδων είναι πραγματικός. Είναι δε προφανές ότι δεν ωφελούν κανέναν. Κανείς εδώ δεν υπερασπίζεται στα τυφλά ανεπαρκείς ευρωπαϊκές παραγωγικές πρακτικές και δεν υποστηρίζει τάσεις προστατευτισμού σε αυτό το άκρως ευαίσθητο θέμα. Η μεταρρύθμιση των μέσων εμπορικής άμυνας μπορεί να εξεταστεί, εφόσον ο σκοπός είναι να καταστεί πιο αποτελεσματική και διαφανής.
Η Πράσινη Βίβλος μπορεί να αποτελέσει ένα καλό σημείο εκκίνησης, εφόσον ληφθούν δεόντως υπόψη οι απόψεις όλων των ενδιαφερομένων και εφόσον η Επιτροπή και το Συμβούλιο δεν οχυρωθούν πίσω από προκατασκευασμένες ιδεολογικές θέσεις. Η διαδικασία λήψης αποφάσεων μπορεί επίσης να βελτιωθεί, ενώ πρέπει να διασφαλίσουμε ότι οι αποφάσεις των κρατών μελών θα λαμβάνονται βάσει τεκμηριωμένων ερευνών τις οποίες θα πραγματοποιούν ανεξάρτητα κοινοτικά όργανα, και όχι βάσει των εθνικών συμφερόντων ή, αν προτιμάτε, του εθνικού εγωισμού.
Είναι, λοιπόν, σημαντικό να βελτιώσουμε και να ενισχύσουμε τα μέσα εμπορικής άμυνας, παρά να τα αποδυναμώσουμε. Από την άλλη πλευρά, μπορεί να υιοθετηθεί μια νέα προσέγγιση έναντι λιγότερο παραδοσιακών απειλών εις βάρος του ισορροπημένου και ελευθέρου διεθνούς εμπορίου. Πρακτικές όπως το λεγόμενο κοινωνικό ή περιβαλλοντικό ντάμπινγκ πρέπει επίσης να αντιμετωπιστούν και, όπου κρίνεται αναγκαίο, να εξετάζεται σοβαρά η χρήση νέων μέσων χειρισμού τους στο πλαίσιο των συμφερόντων της Κοινότητας.
Οι ακόλουθες είναι οι ερωτήσεις στις οποίες παρακαλώ τον κ. Mandelson να απαντήσει απόψε. Πρώτον, οι διαπραγματεύσεις της Ντόχα ξεκίνησαν και πάλι, και εύχομαι ειλικρινά ότι θα οδηγήσουν σε μια σαφή επιτυχία. Στο πλαίσιο αυτό, δεν θα ήταν προτιμότερο να περιμένουμε την επιτυχή ολοκλήρωση των πολυμερών διαπραγματεύσεων προτού ξεκινήσουμε αυτό το εγχείρημα, το οποίο ενδέχεται να αποδυναμώσει τη θέση μας στη Γενεύη;
Δεύτερον, μπορεί ο κ. Mandelson να εξηγήσει γιατί οι υπηρεσίες του εφαρμόζουν ήδη πολλές αμφιλεγόμενες καινοτομίες οι οποίες αναφέρονται στην Πράσινη Βίβλο, πριν ακόμη ολοκληρωθεί η δημόσια διαβούλευση και χωρίς να έχουν προηγηθεί συζητήσεις είτε στο Συμβούλιο είτε στο παρόν Κοινοβούλιο;
Τρίτον, δεδομένου ότι στο νέο σύστημα εμπορικής άμυνας το οποίο προτείνει η Επιτροπή προβλέπεται ρόλος για όλα τα ενδιαφερόμενα μέρη, περιλαμβανομένων όσων δεν σχετίζονται με την παραγωγή προϊόντων τα οποία εμπίπτουν στο πλαίσιο αυτής της έρευνας, θεωρείτε μήπως ότι είναι πλέον καιρός να επιτραπεί στις συνδικαλιστικές ενώσεις να υποβάλλουν καταγγελίες, όπως προβλέπεται στη συμφωνία αντιντάμπινγκ του ΠΟΕ;
Θα ολοκληρώσω την παρέμβασή μου ζητώντας επισήμως από τον κ. Mandelson να προσφέρει διαβεβαιώσεις ότι το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο θα τηρείται ενήμερο σε όλα τα στάδια της διαδικασίας και ότι οι απόψεις που εκφράζονται από τα μέλη του θα λαμβάνονται πλήρως υπόψη κατά τη συζήτηση αυτού του εξαιρετικά ευαίσθητου θέματος.
Με την εν λόγω Πράσινη Βίβλο, η Επιτροπή επιδιώκει να ξεκινήσει διάλογο σχετικά με τη χρήση των μέσων εμπορικής άμυνας στην Ευρώπη: των αντισταθμιστικών δασμών και των μέτρων αντιντάμπινγκ και προστασίας. Θεωρώ αξιέπαινη την πρωτοβουλία αυτή και είμαι πεπεισμένος για την αξία αυτού του διαλόγου. Πρέπει να συζητούμε περισσότερο τα θέματα εμπορικής πολιτικής και τις επιλογές της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής και του Συμβουλίου, ενώ οφείλουμε να μεριμνούμε ώστε, πριν από τη λήψη αποφάσεων, τα θέματα αυτά να συζητούνται επαρκώς στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο. Πρέπει να δώσουμε μεγαλύτερες αρμοδιότητες στο Κοινοβούλιο και να υποβάλουμε την εμπορική πολιτική σε περισσότερο δημοκρατικό έλεγχο.
Διανύουμε μια χρονική περίοδο η οποία θεωρείται από πολλούς περίοδος κρίσης. Διανύουμε μια περίοδο κατά την οποία οι Ευρωπαίοι διερωτώνται: τι αντιπροσωπεύει η Ευρώπη και γιατί να χρειαζόμαστε καν έναν τόσο σύνθετο οργανισμό όπως η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση; Όταν λοιπόν τίθενται αυτά τα εύλογα ερωτήματα, ορισμένα ζωτικής σημασίας θέματα που πρέπει να εξετάζονται είναι η σημασία του ρόλου μιας ενωμένης ΕΕ στον παγκοσμιοποιημένο κόσμο και η σημασία του να έχουμε μια ενιαία φωνή για την εκπροσώπηση και την προάσπιση των συμφερόντων των 500 εκατ. πολιτών σε κάθε διαπραγμάτευση με άλλους εμπορικούς εταίρους στη διεθνή αγορά.
Το διεθνές εμπόριο και ο αντίκτυπός του για τις ζωές των πολιτών μας και το μέλλον των επιχειρήσεών μας, μεγάλων, μεσαίων και μικρών, διαδραματίζει κεντρικό ρόλο στις ανησυχίες που εκφράζουν πολλοί έναντι του φαινομένου που ονομάζουμε «παγκοσμιοποίηση». Ενώ, όμως, πολλοί εξ ημών θεωρούμε ότι ορισμένες από τις επικρίσεις είναι απλούστατα φτηνή δημαγωγία, οφείλουμε να κατανοούμε αυτές τις ανησυχίες και να αντιστεκόμαστε σε καθαρά νομοτελειακές εξελίξεις σε αυτόν τον νέο κόσμο, στον τρόπο διεξαγωγής του εμπορίου και στον τρόπο με τον οποίο κατανέμονται η φτώχεια και ο πλούτος.
Δεν είναι δυνατόν να πούμε στους Ευρωπαίους που χάνουν τις θέσεις απασχόλησής τους όταν μια επιχείρηση αποφασίζει ξαφνικά να μετακινηθεί προς τα ανατολικά σε αναζήτηση μεγαλύτερων κερδών ότι δεν πρέπει να ορθώνουν εμπόδια στην πρόοδο. Επιθυμούν να είναι ενήμεροι για τις εξελίξεις, και η φωνή τους πρέπει να ακούγεται από τους υπεύθυνους για τη λήψη των τελικών αποφάσεων.
Δεν πρέπει να λησμονούμε ότι υπάρχουν περισσότερες από μία συνταγές οικονομικής μεγέθυνσης και εμπορικής ανάπτυξης. Είναι θέμα πολιτικών επιλογών το κατά πόσον το μέλλον της Ευρώπης θα ανήκει μόνο σε γιγαντιαίες εμπορικές επιχειρήσεις λιανικής πώλησης και εισαγωγείς ή αν μπορούμε να διατηρήσουμε ένα πρότυπο συμβατό με τους βασικότερους κοινωνικούς και περιβαλλοντικούς στόχους μας.
Η ακλόνητη πίστη μας στο ελεύθερο εμπόριο είναι απολύτως συμβατή με την ανάγκη δημιουργίας ίσων όρων ανταγωνισμού. Ακόμη και οι πιο ειρηνικές χώρες του κόσμου –μεταξύ αυτών, και η Ευρώπη– γνωρίζουν ότι η απόλυτη προσήλωση στην ειρήνη δεν σημαίνει απαραιτήτως ότι καταργούνται οι στρατοί και ότι πρέπει να καταστραφούν όλα τα μέσα άμυνας.
Λέμε, λοιπόν, ναι στα τεράστια οφέλη του ελευθέρου εμπορίου στον ανοικτό κόσμο μας, και λέμε επίσης ναι στη δίκαιη εφαρμογή των κανόνων στους οποίους στηρίζεται αυτό το παγκόσμιο εμπόριο.
Χαιρετίζουμε την Πράσινη Βίβλο, η οποία έχει το πλεονέκτημα ότι ξεκινά τη συζήτηση αυτού του θέματος. Το κείμενο και τα θέματα που θίγει προϋποθέτουν ήδη ότι κάτι πρέπει να γίνει για την προσαρμογή του υφιστάμενου κοινοτικού συστήματος εμπορικής άμυνας."@el10
".
Señor Presidente, hemos solicitado este debate para examinar los antecedentes y el propósito del Libro Verde aprobado por la Comisión el 6 de diciembre de 2006.
Esto podría ser cierto. El reciente caso del calzado ha demostrado que el riesgo de bloqueo es real. Está claro que esto no beneficia a nadie. Ninguno de los presentes defiende a ultranza una producción europea ineficiente ni respalda un planteamiento proteccionista de esta materia tan sensible. Se puede contemplar una reforma de la defensa comercial si se pretende conseguir una mayor efectividad y transparencia.
El Libro Verde puede constituir un buen punto de partida si se tienen en cuenta debidamente todos los puntos de vista de las partes interesadas y si la Comisión y el Consejo no se atrincheran tras posturas ideológicas preconcebidas. El proceso de toma de decisiones también es mejorable y tenemos que garantizar que los Estados miembros tomen decisiones basadas en una investigación bien fundamentada, realizada por organismos comunitarios independientes y no en intereses nacionales o, si lo prefieren, en egoísmos nacionales.
Por lo tanto, es importante mejorar y reforzar los instrumentos de defensa comercial en lugar de diluirlos. Por otra parte, cabe adoptar un nuevo enfoque de amenazas menos tradicionales para un comercio mundial libre y equilibrado. También hay que hacer frente a prácticas como el denominado dumping social o ambiental y, si es preciso, deberían considerarse seriamente nuevas formas de abordarlas como cuestión de interés comunitario.
Las siguientes son las preguntas que quisiera que me contestara el señor Mandelson esta tarde. En primer lugar, se han reanudado las negociaciones de Doha y sinceramente espero que sean un rotundo éxito. En ese sentido, ¿no habría sido mejor esperar a que concluyesen con éxito las negociaciones multilaterales antes de iniciar este ejercicio, que podría debilitar nuestra posición en Ginebra?
En segundo lugar, ¿podría explicarme el señor Mandelson por qué sus servicios ya están aplicando algunas innovaciones dudosas que se mencionan en el Libro Verde incluso antes de que haya finalizado la consulta pública y sin que haya habido ningún debate en el Consejo ni en este Parlamento?
El tercer lugar, dado que el nuevo sistema de defensa comercial propuesto por la Comisión asigna un papel a todas las posibles partes interesadas, incluidas las no relacionadas con la producción de mercancías incluidas en el ámbito de la investigación, ¿no cree usted que ha llegado la hora de permitir a los sindicatos que presenten una queja, conforme a lo previsto en el acuerdo antidumping de la OMC?
Para concluir, quisiera pedir formalmente al señor Mandelson que dé garantías de que se mantendrá informado al Parlamento Europeo en todas las fases del proceso y de que los puntos de vista expresados por sus diputados se tendrán en cuenta a la hora de debatir esta cuestión tan sensible.
Con el Libro Verde, la Comisión pretende estimular un debate sobre el uso de los instrumentos de defensa comercial en Europa: medidas antisubvenciones, antidumping y de salvaguardia. Creo que se trata de una iniciativa loable y estoy convencido de la utilidad de este debate. Es necesario que dialoguemos mucho más sobre la política comercial y sobre las opciones tomadas por la Comisión Europea y el Consejo y debemos garantizar que las decisiones se debatan como es debido en este Parlamento. Tenemos que dar más poderes a este Parlamento y someter la política comercial en mayor medida a una fiscalización democrática.
Estamos viviendo todos un periodo que para muchos es como una especie de período de crisis. Vivimos una época en la que los europeos se preguntan: ¿qué representa Europa y, ante todo, por qué necesitamos algo tan complicado como la Unión Europea? Cuando se plantean preocupaciones tan legítimas como estas, la importancia del papel de una UE unida en el mundo globalizado y de contar con una única voz que represente y defienda los intereses de 500 millones de ciudadanos en cualquier negociación con otros socios comerciales en el mercado mundial son factores cruciales que hay que tener en cuenta.
El comercio mundial y su efecto en las vidas de nuestros ciudadanos y el futuro de nuestras empresas, ya sean grandes, pequeñas o medianas, desempeña un papel esencial en las inquietudes que muchos sienten ante lo que habitualmente denominamos «globalización». Pese a que muchos de nosotros creemos que gran parte de las críticas no son más que demagogia barata, debemos comprender esas inquietudes y oponernos al determinismo puro con respecto al modo en que se desarrolla este nuevo mundo, en que se lleva a cabo el comercio y en que se distribuyen pobreza y riqueza.
A los europeos que pierden sus empleos porque de pronto una empresa decide trasladarse hacia el este en busca de mayores beneficios no se les puede decir simplemente que los tiempos han cambiado y que no pueden interponerse en el camino del progreso. Quieren saber qué está pasando y es preciso que los que deciden en última instancia les presten oído.
No debemos olvidar que existe más de una receta para el crecimiento económico y el desarrollo comercial. Si el futuro de Europa pertenece exclusivamente a las grandes empresas minoristas y los importadores o si logramos preservar un modelo compatible con nuestras inquietudes sociales y ambientales más esenciales es una cuestión de opción política.
Nuestra firme creencia en el libre comercio es perfectamente compatible con la necesidad de reclamar unas reglas de juego equitativas. Incluso los países más pacíficos del mundo –y Europa entre ellos– saben que un pleno compromiso con la paz no implica necesariamente la abolición de los ejércitos y la destrucción de todos los medios de defensa.
Por tanto, decimos sí a los grandes beneficios del libre comercio en nuestro mundo abierto y sí a la aplicación justa de las normas en que se basa el comercio mundial.
Acogemos con agrado el Libro Verde, que tiene el mérito de abrir un debate sobre esta cuestión. El texto y las preguntas que suscita ya asumen que es preciso hacer algo para cambiar el actual sistema de defensa comercial de la Comunidad."@es21
"Mr President, we have asked for this debate to examine the background and the purpose of the Green Paper adopted by the Commission on 6 December 2006.
This might be true. The recent footwear case has shown that the risk of deadlocks is real. They are clearly of no benefit to anybody. Nobody here is blindly defending inefficient European production or supporting a protectionist approach to this highly sensitive matter. Trade defence reform can be considered, if it is to be made more effective and more transparent.
The Green Paper can be a good starting point if all the stakeholders’ views are properly taken into consideration and if the Commission and the Council do not entrench themselves behind preconceived ideological positions. The decision-making process can also be improved and we need to ensure that decisions are taken by Member States based on the well-founded research carried out by independent Community bodies, rather than on the basis of national interests, or, if you prefer, national selfishness.
It is therefore important to improve and reinforce trade defence instruments instead of watering them down. On the other side, a fresh approach can be made to less traditional threats to a balanced and free world trade. Practices such as so-called social or environmental dumping need also to be confronted and, when necessary, new means of tackling them should be seriously considered as a matter of Community interest.
The following are the questions I would like Mr Mandelson to respond to tonight. Firstly, the Doha negotiations have been restarted and I sincerely hope that they will result in a clear success. In this respect, would it not have been better to wait for the successful conclusion of multilateral negotiations before starting this exercise, which might weaken our position in Geneva?
Secondly, can Mr Mandelson explain why his services are already applying quite a few questionable innovations mentioned in the Green Paper, even before the public consultation has come to an end and without any discussions either before the Council, or before this Parliament?
Thirdly, since the new trade defence system proposed by the Commission assigns a role to all possible interested parties, including those not related to the production of goods falling under the scope of the investigation, do you not believe that the time has come to allow trade unions to lodge a complaint, as foreseen by the WTO anti-dumping agreement?
I conclude by formally asking Mr Mandelson to provide assurances that the European Parliament will be kept informed at all stages of the process and that the views expressed by its members will be fully taken into account when discussing this highly sensitive matter.
With the Green Paper, the Commission intends to stimulate a debate over the use of trade defence instruments in Europe: countervailing, anti-dumping and safeguard measures. I believe that this is a commendable initiative and I am convinced of the value of this debate. We need to talk much more about trade policy and about the choices made by the European Commission and by the Council and we need to ensure that decisions are properly discussed before this Parliament. We need to give this Parliament more power and to make trade policy more subject to democratic scrutiny.
We are all living through a moment which many view as some sort of crisis period. We are living through a time when Europeans are asking themselves: what does Europe represent and why do we need such a complicated thing as the European Union in the first place? And, when these legitimate concerns are raised, the importance of the role of a united EU in the globalised world and the importance of having a single voice to represent and defend the interests of 500 million citizens in any negotiation with other trade partners in the world market are vital factors to be considered.
Global trade and its impact on the lives of our citizens and on the future of our businesses, big, medium-sized and small, play an essential role in the anxieties felt by many over what we usually call ‘globalisation’. And, while many of us believe that some of the criticism is no more than cheap demagogy, we must understand those anxieties and we must oppose pure determinism in the way this new world develops, in the way trade takes place, in the way wealth and poverty are distributed.
Europeans who lose their jobs when a company suddenly decides to move eastwards in search of higher profits cannot simply be told that times have changed and that they cannot stand in the way of progress. They want to know what is going on and they must have their voice heard by those that ultimately decide.
We should not forget that there is more than one recipe for economic growth and trade development. It is a matter of policy options whether the future of Europe belongs only to huge retail corporations and to importers or whether we can preserve a model compatible with our most essential social and environmental concerns.
Our strong belief in free trade is perfectly compatible with the need to ask for a level playing field. Even the most peaceful countries in the world – and Europe among them – know that a full commitment to peace does not necessarily mean that armies are abolished and all means of defence are to be destroyed.
So, we say yes to the huge benefits of free trade in our open world and we say yes to the fair implementation of the rules on which this global trade is based.
We welcome the Green Paper, which has the merit of opening a debate on this subject. Its text and the questions it raises already assume that something must be done to modify the current Community trade defence system."@et5
".
Arvoisa puhemies, pyysimme tätä keskustelua voidaksemme tarkastella komission 6. joulukuuta 2006 antaman vihreän kirjan taustaa ja tarkoitusta.
Tämä saattaa olla totta. Äskettäinen jalkinetapaus osoitti, että umpikujaan ajautumisen vaara on todellinen. Se ei hyödyttäisi tietenkään ketään. Kukaan ei puolusta täällä sokeasti tehotonta eurooppalaista tuotantoa tai kannata protektionistista lähestymistapaa tässä erittäin arkaluonteisessa asiassa. Kaupan suojakeinojen uudistamista voidaan harkita, jos niistä saadaan siten tehokkaampia ja avoimempia.
Vihreä kirja voi olla hyvä lähtökohta, jos kaikkien sidosryhmien näkemykset otetaan asianmukaisesti huomioon eivätkä komissio ja neuvosto linnoittaudu ennalta omaksuttujen ideologisten kantojensa taakse. Päätöksentekoprosessiakin voidaan parantaa, ja on varmistettava, että jäsenvaltioiden tekemät päätökset perustuvat riippumattomien yhteisön elinten toteuttamaan perusteltuun tutkimukseen eikä kansallisiin etunäkökohtiin tai, jos halutaan käyttää toista ilmaisua, kansalliseen itsekkyyteen.
Kaupan suojakeinoja on siis tärkeää parantaa ja vahvistaa sen sijaan, että ne vesitettäisiin. Toisaalta tasapainoista ja vapaata maailmankauppaa uhkaaviin, ei niin perinteisiin uhkiin voidaan suhtautua uudella tavalla. Niin kutsutun sosiaalisen tai ympäristöperusteisen polkumyynnin kaltaisia käytäntöjä on vastustettava, ja tarpeen vaatiessa on harkittava vakavasti uusia keinoja niihin puuttumiseksi yhteisön edun nimissä.
Toivoisin komission jäseneltä Mandelsonilta vastausta seuraaviin kysymyksiin. Ensinnäkin Dohan neuvottelut on aloitettu uudelleen, ja toivon todella, että niissä onnistutaan selkeästi. Eikö tältä osin olisi ollut parempi odottaa monenvälisten neuvottelujen onnistunutta loppuun saattamista ennen tätä aloitetta, joka saattaa heikentää asemaamme Genevessä?
Voiko komission jäsen Mandelson toiseksi selittää, miksi hänen yksikössään sovelletaan jo nyt joitakin vihreässä kirjassa mainittuja kyseenalaisia uudistuksia, vaikkei julkista kuulemista ole saatettu loppuun eikä asiasta ole keskusteltu neuvostossa eikä parlamentissa?
Kolmanneksi kysyisin, että koska komission ehdottamassa uudessa kaupan suojajärjestelmässä kaikilla mahdollisilla asianosaisilla on osansa – myös niillä, jotka eivät liity tutkimuksen kohteena olevien tuotteiden tuotantoon – ettekö ole sitä mieltä, että on tullut aika antaa ammattiliitoille mahdollisuus tehdä valitus, kuten WTO:n polkumyynnin vastaisessa sopimuksessa esitetään?
Päätän puheeni pyytämällä muodollisesti komission jäsentä Mandelsonia antamaan takeet siitä, että Euroopan parlamentti pidetään ajan tasalla kaikissa prosessin vaiheessa ja että sen jäsenten esittämät kannat otetaan täysin huomioon tästä erittäin arkaluonteisesta asiasta keskusteltaessa.
Komission aikomuksena on virittää vihreän kirjan avulla keskustelua kaupan suojakeinojen – tasoitus-, polkumyynti- ja suojatoimenpiteiden – käytöstä EU:ssa. Aloite ansaitsee mielestäni kiitokset, ja olen vakuuttunut siitä, että tämä keskustelu on arvokas. Meidän on keskusteltava paljon enemmän kauppapolitiikasta ja Euroopan komission ja neuvoston tekemistä päätöksistä ja on varmistettava, että päätöksistä keskustellaan kunnolla täällä parlamentissa. Parlamentin valtaa on lisättävä, ja kauppapolitiikka on saatava laajemmin demokraattisen valvonnan alle.
Elämme nyt aikaa, jota monet pitävät jonkinlaisena kriisinä. Elämme aikaa, jona eurooppalaiset pohtivat, mitä Euroopan unioni edustaa ja miksi jotain niin monimutkaista kuin Euroopan unioni ylipäätään tarvitaan. Kun näitä aiheellisia kysymyksiä pohditaan, on tähdellistä ottaa huomioon, miten tärkeä asema yhtenäisellä EU:lla on globaalistuneessa maailmassa ja miten tärkeää on edustaa ja puolustaa 500 miljoonan kansalaisen etuja yhdellä äänellä neuvoteltaessa muiden kauppakumppanien kanssa maailmanmarkkinoilla.
Maailmankauppa ja sen vaikutukset kansalaisten elämään sekä suurten, keskisuurten ja pienten yritysten tulevaisuuteen ovat keskeinen tekijä niissä monissa peloissa, jotka kohdistuvat ilmiöön, jota tavallisesti kutsutaan globaalistumiseksi. Monet meistä ovat sitä mieltä, että osa arvostelusta on vain halpahintaista kansankiihotusta. Meidän on kuitenkin ymmärrettävä näitä pelkoja ja vastustettava puhdasta determinismiä tämän uudenlaisen maailman kehittymisen, kaupankäynnin toteuttamisen ja hyvinvoinnin ja köyhyyden jakautumisen suhteen.
Eurooppalaisille, jotka menettävät työpaikkansa yritysten päättäessä yhtäkkiä siirtyä itään suurempien voittojen toivossa, ei voi noin vain todeta, että ajat ovat muuttuneet eivätkä he voi asettua poikkiteloin kehityksen tielle. He haluavat tietää, mitä on tekeillä, ja he haluavat äänensä kantautuvan niiden korviin, jotka tekevät lopulliset päätökset.
Ei pidä unohtaa, että talouskasvuun ja kaupan kehittymiseen on olemassa useampia reseptejä. Riippuu valinnoista, onko Euroopan unionissa tulevaisuudessa vain valtavia jälleenmyynti- ja tuontiyhtiöitä vai pystymmekö säilyttämään mallin, joka on tärkeimpien sosiaalisten ja ympäristöä koskevien vaatimustemme mukainen.
Vahva uskomme vapaakauppaan sopii täysin siihen, että on välttämätöntä vaatia tasavertaiset edellytykset. Jopa maailman rauhanomaisimmat maat, joihin Eurooppa kuuluu, tietävät, että täysi sitoutuminen rauhaan ei tarkoita välttämättä sitä, että armeijat lakkautettaisiin ja kaikki puolustusaseet tuhottaisiin.
Niinpä otamme avoimessa maailmassa harjoitettavan vapaakaupan valtavat hyödyt vastaan ja kannatamme maailmankaupan perustana olevien sääntöjen oikeudenmukaista soveltamista.
Olemme tyytyväisiä vihreään kirjaan, jonka ansiota on keskustelun avaaminen tästä aiheesta. Tekstissä ja siinä esitetyissä kysymyksissä oletetaan jo nyt, että jotain on tehtävä yhteisön nykyisen kaupan suojajärjestelmän muuttamiseksi."@fi7
"Monsieur le Président, nous avons demandé ce débat afin d’examiner le contexte et l’objectif du livre vert adopté par la Commission le 6 décembre 2006.
Cela pourrait être vrai. La récente affaire des chaussures a montré que le risque d’impasses est réel. Elles ne présentent clairement aucun avantage pour personne. Nul, ici, ne défend aveuglément une production européenne peu performante ni ne soutient une approche protectionniste à l’égard de cette question très sensible. Une réforme de la défense commerciale peut être envisagée, si c’est pour qu’elle soit rendue plus efficace et plus transparente.
Le livre vert peut être un bon point de départ si l’on prend dûment en considération les opinions de toutes les parties prenantes et si la Commission et le Conseil ne se retranchent pas derrière des positions idéologiques préconçues. Le processus décisionnel peut également être amélioré et nous devons nous assurer que les décisions sont prises par des États membres sur la base de la recherche bien fondée effectuée par des organes communautaires indépendants, plutôt que sur la base d’intérêts nationaux ou, si vous préférez, de l’égoïsme national.
Dès lors, il importe d’améliorer et de renforcer les instruments de défense commerciale plutôt que de les assouplir. Par ailleurs, une nouvelle approche peut être adoptée à l’égard des menaces moins traditionnelles qui pèsent sur un commerce mondial libre et équilibré. Il faut également faire face à des pratiques telles que le dumping dit social ou environnemental et, si nécessaire, il y a lieu de considérer sérieusement de nouvelles manières de s’y attaquer dans l’intérêt de la Communauté.
Voici les questions auxquelles j’aimerais que M. Mandelson réponde ce soir. Premièrement, les négociations de Doha ont été relancées et j’espère sincèrement qu’elles seront clairement fructueuses. À cet égard, n’aurait-il pas mieux valu attendre la conclusion heureuse des négociations multilatérales avant de commencer cette opération, qui pourrait affaiblir notre position à Genève?
Deuxièmement, M. Mandelson peut-il expliquer pourquoi ses services appliquent déjà un bon nombre d’innovations discutables mentionnées dans le livre vert, avant même la fin de la consultation publique et sans la moindre discussion préalable devant le Conseil ou devant le Parlement?
Troisièmement, étant donné que le nouveau système de défense commerciale proposé par la Commission attribue un rôle à toutes les parties intéressées éventuelles, y compris celles qui ne sont pas liées à la production de biens faisant partie de l’enquête, ne pensez-vous pas qu’il est temps de permettre aux syndicats de porter plainte, conformément à l’accord antidumping de l’OMC?
Je conclurai en demandant officiellement à M. Mandelson de nous fournir l’assurance que le Parlement européen sera tenu informé à toutes les étapes du processus et que les opinions exprimées par ses membres seront totalement prises en considération lorsque l’on discutera de cette question très sensible.
Avec le livre vert, la Commission a l’intention de générer un débat sur l’utilisation d’instruments de défense commerciale en Europe: mesures de compensation, antidumping et de sauvegarde. Je pense qu’il s’agit d’une initiative louable et je suis convaincu de la valeur de ce débat. Nous devons parler davantage de politique commerciale et des choix opérés par la Commission européenne et le Conseil et nous devons nous assurer que les décisions soient débattues comme il se doit devant le Parlement. Nous devons donner plus de pouvoir à ce Parlement et soumettre davantage la politique commerciale au scrutin démocratique.
Nous vivons tous une période que beaucoup considèrent comme une sorte de période de crise. Nous vivons une époque où les Européens se demandent ce que représente l’Europe et d’ailleurs, pourquoi ils ont besoin d’une chose aussi compliquée que l’Union européenne. De plus, lorsque ces questions légitimes sont soulevées, l’importance du rôle d’une UE unie dans le monde globalisé et l’importance d’une voix unique pour représenter et défendre les intérêts de 500 millions de citoyens dans toute négociation avec d’autres partenaires commerciaux sur le marché mondial sont des facteurs qu’il est vital de considérer.
Le commerce mondial et son impact sur la vie de nos concitoyens et sur le futur de nos entreprises, qu’elles soient petites, moyennes ou grandes, jouent un rôle essentiel dans les inquiétudes ressenties par beaucoup à propos de ce que l’on appelle généralement la «mondialisation» Et bien que beaucoup d’entre nous pensent que certaines critiques ne sont rien d’autre que de la démagogie de bas étage, nous devons comprendre ces inquiétudes et nous devons nous opposer au déterminisme pur dans la manière dont ce nouveau monde se développe, la manière dont le commerce a lieu, la manière dont la richesse et la pauvreté sont réparties.
On ne peut pas se contenter de dire aux Européens qui perdent leur travail lorsqu’une société décide soudainement de délocaliser à l’est à la recherche de meilleurs profits que les temps ont changé et qu’ils ne peuvent faire obstacle au progrès. Ils veulent savoir ce qu’il se passe et il faut que leur voix soit entendue par ceux qui, en fin de compte, décident.
Nous ne devons pas oublier qu’il existe plus d’une recette pour la croissance économique et le développement du commerce. Le futur de l’Europe appartient-il uniquement aux grandes sociétés de vente au détail et aux importateurs ou pouvons-nous préserver un modèle compatible avec nos problèmes sociaux et environnementaux les plus importants? C’est là une question de choix politiques.
Notre foi puissante dans le libre-échange est tout à fait compatible avec la nécessité de demander une situation équitable pour tous. Même les pays les plus pacifiques du monde - et l’Europe en fait partie - savent qu’un engagement complet en faveur de la paix ne signifie pas nécessairement que les armées soient abolies et que tous les moyens de défense soient détruits.
Donc, nous disons oui aux énormes avantages du libre-échange dans notre monde ouvert et nous disons oui à la mise en œuvre équitable des règles sur lesquelles ce commerce mondial se base.
Nous nous réjouissons de ce livre vert, qui a le mérite d’ouvrir un débat sur le sujet. Son texte et les questions qu’il soulève supposent déjà que quelque chose doit être fait afin de modifier le système actuel de défense commerciale de la Communauté."@fr8
"Mr President, we have asked for this debate to examine the background and the purpose of the Green Paper adopted by the Commission on 6 December 2006.
This might be true. The recent footwear case has shown that the risk of deadlocks is real. They are clearly of no benefit to anybody. Nobody here is blindly defending inefficient European production or supporting a protectionist approach to this highly sensitive matter. Trade defence reform can be considered, if it is to be made more effective and more transparent.
The Green Paper can be a good starting point if all the stakeholders’ views are properly taken into consideration and if the Commission and the Council do not entrench themselves behind preconceived ideological positions. The decision-making process can also be improved and we need to ensure that decisions are taken by Member States based on the well-founded research carried out by independent Community bodies, rather than on the basis of national interests, or, if you prefer, national selfishness.
It is therefore important to improve and reinforce trade defence instruments instead of watering them down. On the other side, a fresh approach can be made to less traditional threats to a balanced and free world trade. Practices such as so-called social or environmental dumping need also to be confronted and, when necessary, new means of tackling them should be seriously considered as a matter of Community interest.
The following are the questions I would like Mr Mandelson to respond to tonight. Firstly, the Doha negotiations have been restarted and I sincerely hope that they will result in a clear success. In this respect, would it not have been better to wait for the successful conclusion of multilateral negotiations before starting this exercise, which might weaken our position in Geneva?
Secondly, can Mr Mandelson explain why his services are already applying quite a few questionable innovations mentioned in the Green Paper, even before the public consultation has come to an end and without any discussions either before the Council, or before this Parliament?
Thirdly, since the new trade defence system proposed by the Commission assigns a role to all possible interested parties, including those not related to the production of goods falling under the scope of the investigation, do you not believe that the time has come to allow trade unions to lodge a complaint, as foreseen by the WTO anti-dumping agreement?
I conclude by formally asking Mr Mandelson to provide assurances that the European Parliament will be kept informed at all stages of the process and that the views expressed by its members will be fully taken into account when discussing this highly sensitive matter.
With the Green Paper, the Commission intends to stimulate a debate over the use of trade defence instruments in Europe: countervailing, anti-dumping and safeguard measures. I believe that this is a commendable initiative and I am convinced of the value of this debate. We need to talk much more about trade policy and about the choices made by the European Commission and by the Council and we need to ensure that decisions are properly discussed before this Parliament. We need to give this Parliament more power and to make trade policy more subject to democratic scrutiny.
We are all living through a moment which many view as some sort of crisis period. We are living through a time when Europeans are asking themselves: what does Europe represent and why do we need such a complicated thing as the European Union in the first place? And, when these legitimate concerns are raised, the importance of the role of a united EU in the globalised world and the importance of having a single voice to represent and defend the interests of 500 million citizens in any negotiation with other trade partners in the world market are vital factors to be considered.
Global trade and its impact on the lives of our citizens and on the future of our businesses, big, medium-sized and small, play an essential role in the anxieties felt by many over what we usually call ‘globalisation’. And, while many of us believe that some of the criticism is no more than cheap demagogy, we must understand those anxieties and we must oppose pure determinism in the way this new world develops, in the way trade takes place, in the way wealth and poverty are distributed.
Europeans who lose their jobs when a company suddenly decides to move eastwards in search of higher profits cannot simply be told that times have changed and that they cannot stand in the way of progress. They want to know what is going on and they must have their voice heard by those that ultimately decide.
We should not forget that there is more than one recipe for economic growth and trade development. It is a matter of policy options whether the future of Europe belongs only to huge retail corporations and to importers or whether we can preserve a model compatible with our most essential social and environmental concerns.
Our strong belief in free trade is perfectly compatible with the need to ask for a level playing field. Even the most peaceful countries in the world – and Europe among them – know that a full commitment to peace does not necessarily mean that armies are abolished and all means of defence are to be destroyed.
So, we say yes to the huge benefits of free trade in our open world and we say yes to the fair implementation of the rules on which this global trade is based.
We welcome the Green Paper, which has the merit of opening a debate on this subject. Its text and the questions it raises already assume that something must be done to modify the current Community trade defence system."@hu11
".
Signor Presidente, abbiamo chiesto questo dibattito per esaminare gli antecedenti e lo scopo del Libro verde adottato dalla Commissione il 6 dicembre 2006.
Potrebbe essere vero. Il caso recente delle calzature ha dimostrato quanto sia reale il rischio di situazioni di stallo, che evidentemente non portano vantaggi a nessuno. Nessuno qui vuole difendere ciecamente la produzione europea inefficiente né un approccio protezionista a una questione molto delicata. La riforma della protezione del commercio può essere presa in considerazione solo se rende il sistema più efficace e trasparente.
Il Libro verde può essere un buon punto di partenza se vengono prese debitamente in considerazione tutte le opinioni delle parti interessate e se la Commissione e il Consiglio non si barricano dietro a posizioni ideologiche precostituite. Anche il processo decisionale può essere migliorato e dobbiamo accertarci che gli Stati membri prendano le decisioni sulla base di ricerche fondate condotte da organi comunitari indipendenti invece che dare la precedenza agli interessi nazionali o, se preferite, agli egoismi nazionali.
E’ pertanto importante migliorare e rafforzare gli strumenti di difesa commerciale invece che indebolirli. D’altro canto, è possibile adottare un approccio nuovo a minacce meno tradizionali che incombono su un commercio mondiale libero ed equilibrato. Anche pratiche quali il cosiddetto
sociale o ambientale devono essere affrontate e, laddove necessario, devono essere presi seriamente in considerazione nuovi mezzi per combatterle, nell’interesse comunitario.
Quelle che seguono sono le domande a cui vorrei che il Commissario Mandelson fornisse una risposta. In primo luogo, sono ricominciati i negoziati di Doha e mi auguro sinceramente che producano un risultato soddisfacente. In tal senso, non sarebbe meglio aspettare la conclusione dei negoziati multilaterali prima di iniziare tale esercizio, che potrebbe indebolire la nostra posizione a Ginevra?
Secondo punto: il Commissario Mandelson potrebbe spiegare perché i suoi servizi stanno già applicando svariate innovazioni discutibili menzionate nel Libro verde, addirittura prima che si sia conclusa la consultazione pubblica e senza che l’argomento sia stato dibattuto in sede di Consiglio o dinanzi all’Assemblea?
In terzo luogo, visto che il nuovo sistema di difesa commerciale proposto dalla Commissione assegna un ruolo a tutte le parti interessate possibili, comprese quelle non direttamente coinvolte nella produzione dei beni che rientrano nell’ambito dello studio, non ritiene che sia giunto il momento di consentire ai sindacati di presentare un reclamo, come previsto dall’accordo
dell’OMC?
Concludo chiedendo formalmente al Commissario Mandelson di garantire al Parlamento europeo che lo terrà al corrente in tutte le fasi della procedura e che i pareri espressi dagli eurodeputati verranno presi pienamente in considerazione al momento di discutere questa delicatissima questione.
Con il Libro verde, la Commissione si propone di incentivare un dibattito sull’utilizzo degli strumenti di difesa commerciale in Europa: misure antisovvenzioni
e di salvaguardia. Reputo pregevole tale iniziativa, e sono convinto del valore di questo dibattito. Dobbiamo discutere più spesso di politica commerciale e delle scelte fatte dalla Commissione europea e dal Consiglio, e dobbiamo assicurarci che le decisioni vengano debitamente dibattute dinanzi al Parlamento. Dobbiamo accordare maggiori poteri alla nostra Assemblea e sottoporre più frequentemente all’esame democratico la politica commerciale.
Stiamo attraversando un periodo da molti considerato in un certo senso critico. Viviamo in un’epoca in cui gli europei si stanno chiedendo: cosa rappresenta l’Europa e comunque perché ci serve un’entità così complessa come l’Unione europea? Quando vengono sollevate simili questioni legittime, i fattori vitali da considerare sono la rilevanza del ruolo di un’UE unita nel mondo globalizzato e l’importanza di parlare a una sola voce per esprimere e difendere gli interessi di 500 milioni di cittadini nei negoziati con gli altri
commerciali del mercato mondiale.
Il commercio mondiale e le sue ripercussioni sulle vite dei nostri cittadini e sul futuro delle nostre aziende, che siano grandi, medie o piccole, occupano un posto centrale nelle perplessità suscitate in molti da quella che chiamiamo solitamente “globalizzazione”. Mentre molti di noi ritengono che talune di queste critiche siano soltanto dettate da uno spirito demagogico di bassa lega, dobbiamo capire tali ansie e opporci al determinismo puro nello sviluppo di questo nuovo mondo, nel modo di condurre il commercio e nella maniera in cui vengono ripartite ricchezza e povertà.
Agli europei che perdono il posto di lavoro quando un’impresa decide improvvisamente di trasferirsi a est alla ricerca di maggiori profitti non si può semplicemente raccontare che i tempi sono cambiati e che non possono opporsi al progresso. Vogliono sapere cosa sta succedendo e devono far sentire la propria voce ai responsabili ultimi delle decisioni.
Non dobbiamo dimenticare che esiste più di una ricetta per la crescita economica e lo sviluppo commerciale. E’ una questione di scelte politiche se il futuro dell’Europa apparterrà solamente ai colossi della grande distribuzione e agli importatori o se potremo mantenere in vita un modello compatibile con le nostre preoccupazioni sociali e ambientali più pressanti.
La nostra fiducia incrollabile nel libero scambio è perfettamente compatibile con la necessità di pretendere condizioni di parità. Anche i paesi più pacifici del mondo – Europa compresa – sanno che un impegno incondizionato nei confronti della pace non significa necessariamente l’abolizione dell’esercito e la soppressione di tutti i sistemi di difesa.
Di conseguenza, siamo favorevoli ai vantaggi enormi garantiti dal libero scambio nel nostro mondo aperto e siamo altresì favorevoli all’attuazione equa delle norme su cui si basa tale commercio globale.
Accogliamo con favore il Libro verde, che ha il merito di aver suscitato un dibattito sul tema. Il testo e gli interrogativi che solleva presuppongono già un intervento per modificare il sistema attuale di difesa del commercio comunitario."@it12
"Mr President, we have asked for this debate to examine the background and the purpose of the Green Paper adopted by the Commission on 6 December 2006.
This might be true. The recent footwear case has shown that the risk of deadlocks is real. They are clearly of no benefit to anybody. Nobody here is blindly defending inefficient European production or supporting a protectionist approach to this highly sensitive matter. Trade defence reform can be considered, if it is to be made more effective and more transparent.
The Green Paper can be a good starting point if all the stakeholders’ views are properly taken into consideration and if the Commission and the Council do not entrench themselves behind preconceived ideological positions. The decision-making process can also be improved and we need to ensure that decisions are taken by Member States based on the well-founded research carried out by independent Community bodies, rather than on the basis of national interests, or, if you prefer, national selfishness.
It is therefore important to improve and reinforce trade defence instruments instead of watering them down. On the other side, a fresh approach can be made to less traditional threats to a balanced and free world trade. Practices such as so-called social or environmental dumping need also to be confronted and, when necessary, new means of tackling them should be seriously considered as a matter of Community interest.
The following are the questions I would like Mr Mandelson to respond to tonight. Firstly, the Doha negotiations have been restarted and I sincerely hope that they will result in a clear success. In this respect, would it not have been better to wait for the successful conclusion of multilateral negotiations before starting this exercise, which might weaken our position in Geneva?
Secondly, can Mr Mandelson explain why his services are already applying quite a few questionable innovations mentioned in the Green Paper, even before the public consultation has come to an end and without any discussions either before the Council, or before this Parliament?
Thirdly, since the new trade defence system proposed by the Commission assigns a role to all possible interested parties, including those not related to the production of goods falling under the scope of the investigation, do you not believe that the time has come to allow trade unions to lodge a complaint, as foreseen by the WTO anti-dumping agreement?
I conclude by formally asking Mr Mandelson to provide assurances that the European Parliament will be kept informed at all stages of the process and that the views expressed by its members will be fully taken into account when discussing this highly sensitive matter.
With the Green Paper, the Commission intends to stimulate a debate over the use of trade defence instruments in Europe: countervailing, anti-dumping and safeguard measures. I believe that this is a commendable initiative and I am convinced of the value of this debate. We need to talk much more about trade policy and about the choices made by the European Commission and by the Council and we need to ensure that decisions are properly discussed before this Parliament. We need to give this Parliament more power and to make trade policy more subject to democratic scrutiny.
We are all living through a moment which many view as some sort of crisis period. We are living through a time when Europeans are asking themselves: what does Europe represent and why do we need such a complicated thing as the European Union in the first place? And, when these legitimate concerns are raised, the importance of the role of a united EU in the globalised world and the importance of having a single voice to represent and defend the interests of 500 million citizens in any negotiation with other trade partners in the world market are vital factors to be considered.
Global trade and its impact on the lives of our citizens and on the future of our businesses, big, medium-sized and small, play an essential role in the anxieties felt by many over what we usually call ‘globalisation’. And, while many of us believe that some of the criticism is no more than cheap demagogy, we must understand those anxieties and we must oppose pure determinism in the way this new world develops, in the way trade takes place, in the way wealth and poverty are distributed.
Europeans who lose their jobs when a company suddenly decides to move eastwards in search of higher profits cannot simply be told that times have changed and that they cannot stand in the way of progress. They want to know what is going on and they must have their voice heard by those that ultimately decide.
We should not forget that there is more than one recipe for economic growth and trade development. It is a matter of policy options whether the future of Europe belongs only to huge retail corporations and to importers or whether we can preserve a model compatible with our most essential social and environmental concerns.
Our strong belief in free trade is perfectly compatible with the need to ask for a level playing field. Even the most peaceful countries in the world – and Europe among them – know that a full commitment to peace does not necessarily mean that armies are abolished and all means of defence are to be destroyed.
So, we say yes to the huge benefits of free trade in our open world and we say yes to the fair implementation of the rules on which this global trade is based.
We welcome the Green Paper, which has the merit of opening a debate on this subject. Its text and the questions it raises already assume that something must be done to modify the current Community trade defence system."@lt14
"Mr President, we have asked for this debate to examine the background and the purpose of the Green Paper adopted by the Commission on 6 December 2006.
This might be true. The recent footwear case has shown that the risk of deadlocks is real. They are clearly of no benefit to anybody. Nobody here is blindly defending inefficient European production or supporting a protectionist approach to this highly sensitive matter. Trade defence reform can be considered, if it is to be made more effective and more transparent.
The Green Paper can be a good starting point if all the stakeholders’ views are properly taken into consideration and if the Commission and the Council do not entrench themselves behind preconceived ideological positions. The decision-making process can also be improved and we need to ensure that decisions are taken by Member States based on the well-founded research carried out by independent Community bodies, rather than on the basis of national interests, or, if you prefer, national selfishness.
It is therefore important to improve and reinforce trade defence instruments instead of watering them down. On the other side, a fresh approach can be made to less traditional threats to a balanced and free world trade. Practices such as so-called social or environmental dumping need also to be confronted and, when necessary, new means of tackling them should be seriously considered as a matter of Community interest.
The following are the questions I would like Mr Mandelson to respond to tonight. Firstly, the Doha negotiations have been restarted and I sincerely hope that they will result in a clear success. In this respect, would it not have been better to wait for the successful conclusion of multilateral negotiations before starting this exercise, which might weaken our position in Geneva?
Secondly, can Mr Mandelson explain why his services are already applying quite a few questionable innovations mentioned in the Green Paper, even before the public consultation has come to an end and without any discussions either before the Council, or before this Parliament?
Thirdly, since the new trade defence system proposed by the Commission assigns a role to all possible interested parties, including those not related to the production of goods falling under the scope of the investigation, do you not believe that the time has come to allow trade unions to lodge a complaint, as foreseen by the WTO anti-dumping agreement?
I conclude by formally asking Mr Mandelson to provide assurances that the European Parliament will be kept informed at all stages of the process and that the views expressed by its members will be fully taken into account when discussing this highly sensitive matter.
With the Green Paper, the Commission intends to stimulate a debate over the use of trade defence instruments in Europe: countervailing, anti-dumping and safeguard measures. I believe that this is a commendable initiative and I am convinced of the value of this debate. We need to talk much more about trade policy and about the choices made by the European Commission and by the Council and we need to ensure that decisions are properly discussed before this Parliament. We need to give this Parliament more power and to make trade policy more subject to democratic scrutiny.
We are all living through a moment which many view as some sort of crisis period. We are living through a time when Europeans are asking themselves: what does Europe represent and why do we need such a complicated thing as the European Union in the first place? And, when these legitimate concerns are raised, the importance of the role of a united EU in the globalised world and the importance of having a single voice to represent and defend the interests of 500 million citizens in any negotiation with other trade partners in the world market are vital factors to be considered.
Global trade and its impact on the lives of our citizens and on the future of our businesses, big, medium-sized and small, play an essential role in the anxieties felt by many over what we usually call ‘globalisation’. And, while many of us believe that some of the criticism is no more than cheap demagogy, we must understand those anxieties and we must oppose pure determinism in the way this new world develops, in the way trade takes place, in the way wealth and poverty are distributed.
Europeans who lose their jobs when a company suddenly decides to move eastwards in search of higher profits cannot simply be told that times have changed and that they cannot stand in the way of progress. They want to know what is going on and they must have their voice heard by those that ultimately decide.
We should not forget that there is more than one recipe for economic growth and trade development. It is a matter of policy options whether the future of Europe belongs only to huge retail corporations and to importers or whether we can preserve a model compatible with our most essential social and environmental concerns.
Our strong belief in free trade is perfectly compatible with the need to ask for a level playing field. Even the most peaceful countries in the world – and Europe among them – know that a full commitment to peace does not necessarily mean that armies are abolished and all means of defence are to be destroyed.
So, we say yes to the huge benefits of free trade in our open world and we say yes to the fair implementation of the rules on which this global trade is based.
We welcome the Green Paper, which has the merit of opening a debate on this subject. Its text and the questions it raises already assume that something must be done to modify the current Community trade defence system."@lv13
"Mr President, we have asked for this debate to examine the background and the purpose of the Green Paper adopted by the Commission on 6 December 2006.
This might be true. The recent footwear case has shown that the risk of deadlocks is real. They are clearly of no benefit to anybody. Nobody here is blindly defending inefficient European production or supporting a protectionist approach to this highly sensitive matter. Trade defence reform can be considered, if it is to be made more effective and more transparent.
The Green Paper can be a good starting point if all the stakeholders’ views are properly taken into consideration and if the Commission and the Council do not entrench themselves behind preconceived ideological positions. The decision-making process can also be improved and we need to ensure that decisions are taken by Member States based on the well-founded research carried out by independent Community bodies, rather than on the basis of national interests, or, if you prefer, national selfishness.
It is therefore important to improve and reinforce trade defence instruments instead of watering them down. On the other side, a fresh approach can be made to less traditional threats to a balanced and free world trade. Practices such as so-called social or environmental dumping need also to be confronted and, when necessary, new means of tackling them should be seriously considered as a matter of Community interest.
The following are the questions I would like Mr Mandelson to respond to tonight. Firstly, the Doha negotiations have been restarted and I sincerely hope that they will result in a clear success. In this respect, would it not have been better to wait for the successful conclusion of multilateral negotiations before starting this exercise, which might weaken our position in Geneva?
Secondly, can Mr Mandelson explain why his services are already applying quite a few questionable innovations mentioned in the Green Paper, even before the public consultation has come to an end and without any discussions either before the Council, or before this Parliament?
Thirdly, since the new trade defence system proposed by the Commission assigns a role to all possible interested parties, including those not related to the production of goods falling under the scope of the investigation, do you not believe that the time has come to allow trade unions to lodge a complaint, as foreseen by the WTO anti-dumping agreement?
I conclude by formally asking Mr Mandelson to provide assurances that the European Parliament will be kept informed at all stages of the process and that the views expressed by its members will be fully taken into account when discussing this highly sensitive matter.
With the Green Paper, the Commission intends to stimulate a debate over the use of trade defence instruments in Europe: countervailing, anti-dumping and safeguard measures. I believe that this is a commendable initiative and I am convinced of the value of this debate. We need to talk much more about trade policy and about the choices made by the European Commission and by the Council and we need to ensure that decisions are properly discussed before this Parliament. We need to give this Parliament more power and to make trade policy more subject to democratic scrutiny.
We are all living through a moment which many view as some sort of crisis period. We are living through a time when Europeans are asking themselves: what does Europe represent and why do we need such a complicated thing as the European Union in the first place? And, when these legitimate concerns are raised, the importance of the role of a united EU in the globalised world and the importance of having a single voice to represent and defend the interests of 500 million citizens in any negotiation with other trade partners in the world market are vital factors to be considered.
Global trade and its impact on the lives of our citizens and on the future of our businesses, big, medium-sized and small, play an essential role in the anxieties felt by many over what we usually call ‘globalisation’. And, while many of us believe that some of the criticism is no more than cheap demagogy, we must understand those anxieties and we must oppose pure determinism in the way this new world develops, in the way trade takes place, in the way wealth and poverty are distributed.
Europeans who lose their jobs when a company suddenly decides to move eastwards in search of higher profits cannot simply be told that times have changed and that they cannot stand in the way of progress. They want to know what is going on and they must have their voice heard by those that ultimately decide.
We should not forget that there is more than one recipe for economic growth and trade development. It is a matter of policy options whether the future of Europe belongs only to huge retail corporations and to importers or whether we can preserve a model compatible with our most essential social and environmental concerns.
Our strong belief in free trade is perfectly compatible with the need to ask for a level playing field. Even the most peaceful countries in the world – and Europe among them – know that a full commitment to peace does not necessarily mean that armies are abolished and all means of defence are to be destroyed.
So, we say yes to the huge benefits of free trade in our open world and we say yes to the fair implementation of the rules on which this global trade is based.
We welcome the Green Paper, which has the merit of opening a debate on this subject. Its text and the questions it raises already assume that something must be done to modify the current Community trade defence system."@mt15
"Mijnheer de Voorzitter, wij hebben om dit debat verzocht om meer inzicht te krijgen in de achtergrond en het doel van het Groenboek dat op 6 december 2006 door de Commissie is aangenomen.
Dit zou kunnen kloppen. Uit de recente schoenenzaak is gebleken dat het risico op impasses groot is. Van dergelijk situaties trekt niemand profijt. Er is hier ook niemand die met oogkleppen op een inefficiënte Europese productie wil verdedigen of een protectionistische aanpak wil ondersteunen van deze uiterst gevoelige kwestie. Indien wij deze kwestie effectiever en transparanter willen aanpakken, kan een hervorming van onze handelsbeschermingsinstrumenten daaraan een bijdrage leveren.
Het Groenboek kan hiervoor een goed beginpunt vormen, mits er op adequate wijze rekening wordt gehouden met de visie van alle belanghebbenden en indien de Commissie en de Raad zich niet verschansen achter vooropgezette ideologische standpunten. Het besluitvormingsproces kan ook verbeterd worden. Wij moeten zorgen dat de lidstaten besluiten nemen op basis van goed gefundeerd onderzoek door onafhankelijke communautaire instanties en niet op basis van nationale belangen, of zo u wilt, nationaal egoïsme.
Daarom is het belangrijk dat wij onze handelsbeschermingsinstrumenten niet verzwakken, maar juist verbeteren en versterken. Daarnaast kan er gebruik worden gemaakt van een innovatieve benadering ten aanzien van de minder traditionele bedreigingen voor een evenwichtige en vrije wereldhandel. Ook praktijken als de zogeheten sociale en ecologische dumping dienen aan de orde te worden gesteld. Indien noodzakelijk dient serieus overwogen te worden of wij, in het belang van de Gemeenschap, nieuwe maatregelen moeten ontwikkelen om dergelijke praktijken aan te pakken.
Dan kom ik nu bij de vragen waarop ik graag vanavond een antwoord zou krijgen van de heer Mandelson. In de eerste plaats zijn de Doha-onderhandelingen opnieuw begonnen en ik hoop van ganser harte dat deze resultaat zullen opleveren. Zou het in dat verband niet beter zijn om te wachten tot de multilaterale onderhandelingen succesvol zijn afgerond voordat de Doha-ronde weer in gang wordt gezet, omdat hierdoor onze positie verzwakt zou kunnen worden?
Kan de heer Mandelson in de tweede plaats uitleggen waarom zijn diensten al een behoorlijk aantal dubieuze vernieuwingen uit het Groenboek toepassen terwijl de openbare raadpleging nog niet eens is afgerond en een en ander ook nog niet aan de Raad of aan dit Parlement is voorgelegd?
In de derde plaats voorziet het nieuwe handelsbeschermingsstelsel zoals dat door de Commissie wordt voorgesteld, in een rol voor alle mogelijke belanghebbende partijen, inclusief de partijen die niet betrokken zijn bij de productie van goederen die onder de werkingssfeer van het onderzoek vallen. Vindt u niet dat het tijd wordt dat ook vakbonden een klacht kunnen indienen, zoals dat ook mogelijk is op basis van de antidumpingovereenkomst van de WTO?
Ik wil besluiten met het formele verzoek aan de heer Mandelson om ons de verzekering te geven dat het Europees Parlement gedurende alle fasen van het proces op de hoogte zal worden gehouden en dat er tijdens de bespreking van deze uiterst gevoelige kwestie terdege rekening zal worden gehouden met de standpunten van de afgevaardigden.
Met dit Groenboek wil de Commissie het debat stimuleren over het gebruik van handelsbeschermingsinstrumenten in Europa, te weten antisubsidie-, antidumping- en vrijwaringsmaatregelen. Ik vind dat een prijzenswaardig initiatief en ik ben ervan overtuigd dat het hier om een waardevol debat gaat. Er moet veel meer gepraat worden over het handelsbeleid en over de keuzes van de Europese Commissie en de Raad: wij moeten ervoor zorgen dat alle besluiten, voordat zij worden bekrachtigd, eerst adequaat door dit Parlement zijn besproken. Wij moeten dit Parlement meer bevoegdheden geven en zorgen dat het handelsbeleid onderworpen wordt aan een kritische Parlementaire toetsing.
Wij leven op dit moment in een tijd die door velen als een soort crisisperiode wordt aangeduid. Wij leven in een tijd waarin Europeanen zichzelf de vraag stellen: Waar staat Europa eigenlijk voor en waarom hebben wij überhaupt zo’n gecompliceerd iets als de Europese Unie nodig? Wanneer dergelijke legitieme twijfels worden geuit, is de rol van een verenigd Europa in een globaliserende wereld een van de cruciale factoren waarop gewezen moet worden. Dat geldt ook voor de betekenis die gehecht moet worden aan het feit dat de belangen van vijfhonderd miljoen burgers in alle onderhandelingen met andere handelspartners op de wereldmarkt door één enkele stem vertegenwoordigd en beschermd kunnen worden.
De wereldhandel en de invloed ervan op de levens van onze burgers en op de toekomst van onze kleine, middelgrote en grote ondernemingen spelen een belangrijke rol bij de angsten en twijfels bij veel mensen over iets wat doorgaans als “globalisering” wordt aangeduid. Hoewel velen onder ons van mening zijn dat een deel van de kritiek niet veel meer is dan goedkope demagogie, moeten wij deze twijfels wel degelijk serieus nemen. Wij moeten ons verzetten tegen een puur deterministische benadering over de wijze waarop deze nieuwe wereld zich ontwikkelt en over de manier waarop de handel functioneert en rijkdom en armoede worden verdeeld.
Europeanen die hun baan verliezen omdat hun bedrijf zich in het oosten gaat vestigen om meer winst te kunnen maken, zitten niet te wachten op de simpele boodschap dat de tijden veranderd zijn en dat zij de vooruitgang niet tegen mogen houden. Zij willen weten wat er aan de hand is. Hun stem moet gehoord worden door degenen die uiteindelijk verantwoordelijk zijn voor de besluitvorming.
Wij mogen niet uit het oog verliezen dat er meer dan één recept is voor economische groei en handelsontwikkeling. Het is een kwestie van beleidskeuzes of de toekomst van Europa toebehoort aan de enorme detailhandelsconcerns en importeurs of dat wij erin slagen om een model in stand te houden dat overeenstemt met onze meest essentiële sociale en ecologische uitgangspunten.
Ons sterke geloof in een vrije handel is uitstekend te rijmen met het noodzakelijke streven naar gelijke mededingingsomstandigheden, het zogeheten
. Zelfs de meest vredelievende landen in de wereld – en Europa hoort daarbij – weten dat een ondubbelzinnige keuze voor vrede niet noodzakelijkerwijs betekent dat alle legers afgeschaft kunnen worden en alle defensiemiddelen vernietigd moeten worden.
Wij omarmen dan ook de grote voordelen die de vrije handel in onze open wereld biedt en wij omarmen eveneens een rechtvaardige uitvoering van de regels waarop deze mondiale handel gebaseerd is.
Wij verwelkomen het Groenboek omdat hierdoor de mogelijkheid wordt geboden om een debat over deze kwestie in gang te zetten. De tekst van het Groenboek en de vragen die daarin worden opgeworpen, kondigen eigenlijk al aan dat er iets ondernomen moet worden om het huidige communautaire stelsel voor de handelsbescherming te wijzigen."@nl3
"Mr President, we have asked for this debate to examine the background and the purpose of the Green Paper adopted by the Commission on 6 December 2006.
This might be true. The recent footwear case has shown that the risk of deadlocks is real. They are clearly of no benefit to anybody. Nobody here is blindly defending inefficient European production or supporting a protectionist approach to this highly sensitive matter. Trade defence reform can be considered, if it is to be made more effective and more transparent.
The Green Paper can be a good starting point if all the stakeholders’ views are properly taken into consideration and if the Commission and the Council do not entrench themselves behind preconceived ideological positions. The decision-making process can also be improved and we need to ensure that decisions are taken by Member States based on the well-founded research carried out by independent Community bodies, rather than on the basis of national interests, or, if you prefer, national selfishness.
It is therefore important to improve and reinforce trade defence instruments instead of watering them down. On the other side, a fresh approach can be made to less traditional threats to a balanced and free world trade. Practices such as so-called social or environmental dumping need also to be confronted and, when necessary, new means of tackling them should be seriously considered as a matter of Community interest.
The following are the questions I would like Mr Mandelson to respond to tonight. Firstly, the Doha negotiations have been restarted and I sincerely hope that they will result in a clear success. In this respect, would it not have been better to wait for the successful conclusion of multilateral negotiations before starting this exercise, which might weaken our position in Geneva?
Secondly, can Mr Mandelson explain why his services are already applying quite a few questionable innovations mentioned in the Green Paper, even before the public consultation has come to an end and without any discussions either before the Council, or before this Parliament?
Thirdly, since the new trade defence system proposed by the Commission assigns a role to all possible interested parties, including those not related to the production of goods falling under the scope of the investigation, do you not believe that the time has come to allow trade unions to lodge a complaint, as foreseen by the WTO anti-dumping agreement?
I conclude by formally asking Mr Mandelson to provide assurances that the European Parliament will be kept informed at all stages of the process and that the views expressed by its members will be fully taken into account when discussing this highly sensitive matter.
With the Green Paper, the Commission intends to stimulate a debate over the use of trade defence instruments in Europe: countervailing, anti-dumping and safeguard measures. I believe that this is a commendable initiative and I am convinced of the value of this debate. We need to talk much more about trade policy and about the choices made by the European Commission and by the Council and we need to ensure that decisions are properly discussed before this Parliament. We need to give this Parliament more power and to make trade policy more subject to democratic scrutiny.
We are all living through a moment which many view as some sort of crisis period. We are living through a time when Europeans are asking themselves: what does Europe represent and why do we need such a complicated thing as the European Union in the first place? And, when these legitimate concerns are raised, the importance of the role of a united EU in the globalised world and the importance of having a single voice to represent and defend the interests of 500 million citizens in any negotiation with other trade partners in the world market are vital factors to be considered.
Global trade and its impact on the lives of our citizens and on the future of our businesses, big, medium-sized and small, play an essential role in the anxieties felt by many over what we usually call ‘globalisation’. And, while many of us believe that some of the criticism is no more than cheap demagogy, we must understand those anxieties and we must oppose pure determinism in the way this new world develops, in the way trade takes place, in the way wealth and poverty are distributed.
Europeans who lose their jobs when a company suddenly decides to move eastwards in search of higher profits cannot simply be told that times have changed and that they cannot stand in the way of progress. They want to know what is going on and they must have their voice heard by those that ultimately decide.
We should not forget that there is more than one recipe for economic growth and trade development. It is a matter of policy options whether the future of Europe belongs only to huge retail corporations and to importers or whether we can preserve a model compatible with our most essential social and environmental concerns.
Our strong belief in free trade is perfectly compatible with the need to ask for a level playing field. Even the most peaceful countries in the world – and Europe among them – know that a full commitment to peace does not necessarily mean that armies are abolished and all means of defence are to be destroyed.
So, we say yes to the huge benefits of free trade in our open world and we say yes to the fair implementation of the rules on which this global trade is based.
We welcome the Green Paper, which has the merit of opening a debate on this subject. Its text and the questions it raises already assume that something must be done to modify the current Community trade defence system."@pl16
"Senhor Presidente, solicitámos este debate para estudar o contexto e o objectivo do Livro Verde adoptado pela Comissão, em 6 de Dezembro de 2006.
É possível que seja verdade. O caso recente no sector do calçado mostrou que o risco de impasse é verdadeiro. Não traz claramente benefícios para ninguém. Ninguém aqui defende cegamente uma produção europeia ineficiente, nem apoia uma abordagem proteccionista a este assunto extremamente delicado. A defesa comercial pode ser considerada, caso seja para ganhar eficácia e transparência.
O Livro Verde pode ser um bom ponto de partida, caso a opinião de todas as partes interessadas seja devidamente tida em conta e a Comissão e o Conselho não se entrincheirem atrás de posições ideológicas preconceituosas. O processo decisório pode também ser melhorado, e é preciso que asseguremos que as decisões tomadas pelos Estados-Membros assentem em investigação bem fundamentada, levada a cabo por organismos comunitários independentes, em vez de ter por base os interesses nacionais ou, se preferirem, os egoísmos nacionais.
Por conseguinte, é importante melhorar e reforçar os mecanismos de defesa comercial em vez de os diluir. Por um lado, poderá adoptar-se uma nova abordagem às ameaças menos tradicionais a um comércio mundial equilibrado e livre. É igualmente necessário enfrentar práticas como o chamado
social ou ambiental e, sempre que necessário, deverão ponderar-se seriamente meios de lhes fazer face como questão de interesse comunitário.
Passo às perguntas que gostaria que o Senhor Comissário Mandelson respondesse esta noite. Em primeiro lugar, as negociações de Doha foram retomadas, e espero sinceramente que venham a ser um êxito rotundo. A este respeito, não teria sido melhor esperar pela conclusão com êxito das negociações multilaterais, antes de dar início a este exercício, que poderá enfraquecer a nossa aposição em Genebra?
Em segundo lugar, poderá o Senhor Comissário Mandelson explicar por que razão os seus serviços aplicam já bastantes inovações questionáveis referidas no Livro Verde, mesmo antes de estarem concluídas as consultas públicas e sem quaisquer discussões, quer no Conselho, quer neste Parlamento?
Em terceiro lugar, uma vez que o novo sistema de defesa comercial proposto pela Comissão atribui um papel a toda e qualquer parte interessada, incluindo as que não estão relacionadas com a produção de bens no âmbito do inquérito, não considerará ter chegado o tempo de permitir aos sindicatos apresentar queixa, tal como previsto no Acordo anti
da OMC?
Concluo, solicitando formalmente ao Senhor Comissário Mandelson que dê garantias de que o Parlamento Europeu será mantido ao corrente em todas as fases do processo e que as opiniões expressas pelos seus deputados serão totalmente tidas em consideração aquando da discussão desta questão extremamente delicada.
Com o Livro Verde, a Comissão tenciona estimular um debate sobre a utilização de instrumentos de defesa comercial na Europa: medidas anti-subvenção, anti
e de salvaguarda. Considero que se trata de uma iniciativa louvável, e estou convencido da utilidade deste debate. É preciso que discutamos muito mais sobre a política comercial e as escolhas operadas pela Comissão Europeia e pelo Conselho e é preciso que asseguremos que as decisões sejam devidamente debatidas perante este Parlamento. É preciso conferir poderes acrescidos a este Parlamento e sujeitar mais a polícia comercial a um controlo democrático.
Estamos a viver um período que muitos consideram ser uma espécie de período de crise. Estamos a viver um período em que os Europeus se perguntam: que representa a Europa e por que razão precisamos nós de algo tão complexo como a União Europeia? E, quando se levantam estas preocupações legítimas, a importância do papel de uma UE unida no mundo globalizado e a importância de esta falar a uma só voz em representação dos interesses de 500 milhões de cidadãos em qualquer negociação com outros parceiros no mercado mundial são factores vitais a considerar.
O mercado mundial e o seu impacto na vida dos nossos cidadãos e no futuro das nossas empresas, sejam elas pequenas, médias ou de grande dimensão, desempenha um papel essencial nas ansiedades sentidas por muitas pessoas relativamente àquilo que entendemos por “globalização”. E, apesar de, para muitos de nós, muitas dessas críticas não passarem de demagogia barata, temos o dever de compreender essas ansiedades e nos opormos ao determinismo puro no que respeita ao desenvolvimento do mundo e à forma como o comércio tem lugar, bem como à forma como a pobreza e a riqueza são distribuídas.
Não é possível dizer simplesmente àqueles Europeus que perdem o seu emprego, quando uma empresa subitamente decide deslocalizar-se para Leste, que os tempos estão a mudar e que eles não podem entravar o progresso. Estas pessoas querem saber o que se passa, e é preciso que a sua voz seja ouvida por aqueles que, em última análise, detêm o poder de decisão.
Não deveremos esquecer que existe mais do que uma receita para o crescimento económico e o desenvolvimento do comércio. É uma questão de opção política determinar se o futuro da Europa pertence apenas às grandes empresas de retalho e aos importadores, ou se poderemos preservar um modelo compatível com as nossas preocupações sociais ambientais mais essenciais.
A nossa profunda crença no comércio livre é perfeitamente compatível com a exigência de situações de igualdade. Mesmo os países mais poderosos do mundo – Europa inclusive – sabem que um empenhamento total na paz não significa necessariamente a abolição dos exércitos e a destruição de todos os meios de defesa.
Por isso, dizemos, “sim” aos enormes benefícios do comércio livre no nosso mundo aberto e dizemos “sim” à aplicação equitativa das regras em que assenta esse comércio livre.
Congratulamo-nos com o Livre Verde, que tem o mérito de abrir um debate a este respeito. O seu texto e as questões que levanta reconhecem, na verdade, a necessidade de se actuar para alterar o actual sistema de defesa comercial da Comunidade."@pt17
"Mr President, we have asked for this debate to examine the background and the purpose of the Green Paper adopted by the Commission on 6 December 2006.
This might be true. The recent footwear case has shown that the risk of deadlocks is real. They are clearly of no benefit to anybody. Nobody here is blindly defending inefficient European production or supporting a protectionist approach to this highly sensitive matter. Trade defence reform can be considered, if it is to be made more effective and more transparent.
The Green Paper can be a good starting point if all the stakeholders’ views are properly taken into consideration and if the Commission and the Council do not entrench themselves behind preconceived ideological positions. The decision-making process can also be improved and we need to ensure that decisions are taken by Member States based on the well-founded research carried out by independent Community bodies, rather than on the basis of national interests, or, if you prefer, national selfishness.
It is therefore important to improve and reinforce trade defence instruments instead of watering them down. On the other side, a fresh approach can be made to less traditional threats to a balanced and free world trade. Practices such as so-called social or environmental dumping need also to be confronted and, when necessary, new means of tackling them should be seriously considered as a matter of Community interest.
The following are the questions I would like Mr Mandelson to respond to tonight. Firstly, the Doha negotiations have been restarted and I sincerely hope that they will result in a clear success. In this respect, would it not have been better to wait for the successful conclusion of multilateral negotiations before starting this exercise, which might weaken our position in Geneva?
Secondly, can Mr Mandelson explain why his services are already applying quite a few questionable innovations mentioned in the Green Paper, even before the public consultation has come to an end and without any discussions either before the Council, or before this Parliament?
Thirdly, since the new trade defence system proposed by the Commission assigns a role to all possible interested parties, including those not related to the production of goods falling under the scope of the investigation, do you not believe that the time has come to allow trade unions to lodge a complaint, as foreseen by the WTO anti-dumping agreement?
I conclude by formally asking Mr Mandelson to provide assurances that the European Parliament will be kept informed at all stages of the process and that the views expressed by its members will be fully taken into account when discussing this highly sensitive matter.
With the Green Paper, the Commission intends to stimulate a debate over the use of trade defence instruments in Europe: countervailing, anti-dumping and safeguard measures. I believe that this is a commendable initiative and I am convinced of the value of this debate. We need to talk much more about trade policy and about the choices made by the European Commission and by the Council and we need to ensure that decisions are properly discussed before this Parliament. We need to give this Parliament more power and to make trade policy more subject to democratic scrutiny.
We are all living through a moment which many view as some sort of crisis period. We are living through a time when Europeans are asking themselves: what does Europe represent and why do we need such a complicated thing as the European Union in the first place? And, when these legitimate concerns are raised, the importance of the role of a united EU in the globalised world and the importance of having a single voice to represent and defend the interests of 500 million citizens in any negotiation with other trade partners in the world market are vital factors to be considered.
Global trade and its impact on the lives of our citizens and on the future of our businesses, big, medium-sized and small, play an essential role in the anxieties felt by many over what we usually call ‘globalisation’. And, while many of us believe that some of the criticism is no more than cheap demagogy, we must understand those anxieties and we must oppose pure determinism in the way this new world develops, in the way trade takes place, in the way wealth and poverty are distributed.
Europeans who lose their jobs when a company suddenly decides to move eastwards in search of higher profits cannot simply be told that times have changed and that they cannot stand in the way of progress. They want to know what is going on and they must have their voice heard by those that ultimately decide.
We should not forget that there is more than one recipe for economic growth and trade development. It is a matter of policy options whether the future of Europe belongs only to huge retail corporations and to importers or whether we can preserve a model compatible with our most essential social and environmental concerns.
Our strong belief in free trade is perfectly compatible with the need to ask for a level playing field. Even the most peaceful countries in the world – and Europe among them – know that a full commitment to peace does not necessarily mean that armies are abolished and all means of defence are to be destroyed.
So, we say yes to the huge benefits of free trade in our open world and we say yes to the fair implementation of the rules on which this global trade is based.
We welcome the Green Paper, which has the merit of opening a debate on this subject. Its text and the questions it raises already assume that something must be done to modify the current Community trade defence system."@ro18
"Mr President, we have asked for this debate to examine the background and the purpose of the Green Paper adopted by the Commission on 6 December 2006.
This might be true. The recent footwear case has shown that the risk of deadlocks is real. They are clearly of no benefit to anybody. Nobody here is blindly defending inefficient European production or supporting a protectionist approach to this highly sensitive matter. Trade defence reform can be considered, if it is to be made more effective and more transparent.
The Green Paper can be a good starting point if all the stakeholders’ views are properly taken into consideration and if the Commission and the Council do not entrench themselves behind preconceived ideological positions. The decision-making process can also be improved and we need to ensure that decisions are taken by Member States based on the well-founded research carried out by independent Community bodies, rather than on the basis of national interests, or, if you prefer, national selfishness.
It is therefore important to improve and reinforce trade defence instruments instead of watering them down. On the other side, a fresh approach can be made to less traditional threats to a balanced and free world trade. Practices such as so-called social or environmental dumping need also to be confronted and, when necessary, new means of tackling them should be seriously considered as a matter of Community interest.
The following are the questions I would like Mr Mandelson to respond to tonight. Firstly, the Doha negotiations have been restarted and I sincerely hope that they will result in a clear success. In this respect, would it not have been better to wait for the successful conclusion of multilateral negotiations before starting this exercise, which might weaken our position in Geneva?
Secondly, can Mr Mandelson explain why his services are already applying quite a few questionable innovations mentioned in the Green Paper, even before the public consultation has come to an end and without any discussions either before the Council, or before this Parliament?
Thirdly, since the new trade defence system proposed by the Commission assigns a role to all possible interested parties, including those not related to the production of goods falling under the scope of the investigation, do you not believe that the time has come to allow trade unions to lodge a complaint, as foreseen by the WTO anti-dumping agreement?
I conclude by formally asking Mr Mandelson to provide assurances that the European Parliament will be kept informed at all stages of the process and that the views expressed by its members will be fully taken into account when discussing this highly sensitive matter.
With the Green Paper, the Commission intends to stimulate a debate over the use of trade defence instruments in Europe: countervailing, anti-dumping and safeguard measures. I believe that this is a commendable initiative and I am convinced of the value of this debate. We need to talk much more about trade policy and about the choices made by the European Commission and by the Council and we need to ensure that decisions are properly discussed before this Parliament. We need to give this Parliament more power and to make trade policy more subject to democratic scrutiny.
We are all living through a moment which many view as some sort of crisis period. We are living through a time when Europeans are asking themselves: what does Europe represent and why do we need such a complicated thing as the European Union in the first place? And, when these legitimate concerns are raised, the importance of the role of a united EU in the globalised world and the importance of having a single voice to represent and defend the interests of 500 million citizens in any negotiation with other trade partners in the world market are vital factors to be considered.
Global trade and its impact on the lives of our citizens and on the future of our businesses, big, medium-sized and small, play an essential role in the anxieties felt by many over what we usually call ‘globalisation’. And, while many of us believe that some of the criticism is no more than cheap demagogy, we must understand those anxieties and we must oppose pure determinism in the way this new world develops, in the way trade takes place, in the way wealth and poverty are distributed.
Europeans who lose their jobs when a company suddenly decides to move eastwards in search of higher profits cannot simply be told that times have changed and that they cannot stand in the way of progress. They want to know what is going on and they must have their voice heard by those that ultimately decide.
We should not forget that there is more than one recipe for economic growth and trade development. It is a matter of policy options whether the future of Europe belongs only to huge retail corporations and to importers or whether we can preserve a model compatible with our most essential social and environmental concerns.
Our strong belief in free trade is perfectly compatible with the need to ask for a level playing field. Even the most peaceful countries in the world – and Europe among them – know that a full commitment to peace does not necessarily mean that armies are abolished and all means of defence are to be destroyed.
So, we say yes to the huge benefits of free trade in our open world and we say yes to the fair implementation of the rules on which this global trade is based.
We welcome the Green Paper, which has the merit of opening a debate on this subject. Its text and the questions it raises already assume that something must be done to modify the current Community trade defence system."@sk19
"Mr President, we have asked for this debate to examine the background and the purpose of the Green Paper adopted by the Commission on 6 December 2006.
This might be true. The recent footwear case has shown that the risk of deadlocks is real. They are clearly of no benefit to anybody. Nobody here is blindly defending inefficient European production or supporting a protectionist approach to this highly sensitive matter. Trade defence reform can be considered, if it is to be made more effective and more transparent.
The Green Paper can be a good starting point if all the stakeholders’ views are properly taken into consideration and if the Commission and the Council do not entrench themselves behind preconceived ideological positions. The decision-making process can also be improved and we need to ensure that decisions are taken by Member States based on the well-founded research carried out by independent Community bodies, rather than on the basis of national interests, or, if you prefer, national selfishness.
It is therefore important to improve and reinforce trade defence instruments instead of watering them down. On the other side, a fresh approach can be made to less traditional threats to a balanced and free world trade. Practices such as so-called social or environmental dumping need also to be confronted and, when necessary, new means of tackling them should be seriously considered as a matter of Community interest.
The following are the questions I would like Mr Mandelson to respond to tonight. Firstly, the Doha negotiations have been restarted and I sincerely hope that they will result in a clear success. In this respect, would it not have been better to wait for the successful conclusion of multilateral negotiations before starting this exercise, which might weaken our position in Geneva?
Secondly, can Mr Mandelson explain why his services are already applying quite a few questionable innovations mentioned in the Green Paper, even before the public consultation has come to an end and without any discussions either before the Council, or before this Parliament?
Thirdly, since the new trade defence system proposed by the Commission assigns a role to all possible interested parties, including those not related to the production of goods falling under the scope of the investigation, do you not believe that the time has come to allow trade unions to lodge a complaint, as foreseen by the WTO anti-dumping agreement?
I conclude by formally asking Mr Mandelson to provide assurances that the European Parliament will be kept informed at all stages of the process and that the views expressed by its members will be fully taken into account when discussing this highly sensitive matter.
With the Green Paper, the Commission intends to stimulate a debate over the use of trade defence instruments in Europe: countervailing, anti-dumping and safeguard measures. I believe that this is a commendable initiative and I am convinced of the value of this debate. We need to talk much more about trade policy and about the choices made by the European Commission and by the Council and we need to ensure that decisions are properly discussed before this Parliament. We need to give this Parliament more power and to make trade policy more subject to democratic scrutiny.
We are all living through a moment which many view as some sort of crisis period. We are living through a time when Europeans are asking themselves: what does Europe represent and why do we need such a complicated thing as the European Union in the first place? And, when these legitimate concerns are raised, the importance of the role of a united EU in the globalised world and the importance of having a single voice to represent and defend the interests of 500 million citizens in any negotiation with other trade partners in the world market are vital factors to be considered.
Global trade and its impact on the lives of our citizens and on the future of our businesses, big, medium-sized and small, play an essential role in the anxieties felt by many over what we usually call ‘globalisation’. And, while many of us believe that some of the criticism is no more than cheap demagogy, we must understand those anxieties and we must oppose pure determinism in the way this new world develops, in the way trade takes place, in the way wealth and poverty are distributed.
Europeans who lose their jobs when a company suddenly decides to move eastwards in search of higher profits cannot simply be told that times have changed and that they cannot stand in the way of progress. They want to know what is going on and they must have their voice heard by those that ultimately decide.
We should not forget that there is more than one recipe for economic growth and trade development. It is a matter of policy options whether the future of Europe belongs only to huge retail corporations and to importers or whether we can preserve a model compatible with our most essential social and environmental concerns.
Our strong belief in free trade is perfectly compatible with the need to ask for a level playing field. Even the most peaceful countries in the world – and Europe among them – know that a full commitment to peace does not necessarily mean that armies are abolished and all means of defence are to be destroyed.
So, we say yes to the huge benefits of free trade in our open world and we say yes to the fair implementation of the rules on which this global trade is based.
We welcome the Green Paper, which has the merit of opening a debate on this subject. Its text and the questions it raises already assume that something must be done to modify the current Community trade defence system."@sl20
"Herr talman! Vi har bett om den här debatten för att undersöka bakgrunden och syftet med grönboken som antogs av kommissionen den 6 december 2006.
Detta kan vara sant. Det aktuella fallet med skodon har visat att risken för dödlägen är reell. En sådan situation gagnar absolut inte någon. Ingen här försvarar blint en ineffektiv europeisk produktion eller stöder en protektionistisk inställning i denna högst känsliga fråga. Reformer av handelsskyddet kan tas i åtanke om systemet görs mer effektivt och ökar insynen.
Grönboken kan vara en bra utgångspunkt om man verkligen tar hänsyn till alla intressenters åsikter och om kommissionen och rådet inte gräver ner sig bakom förutfattade ideologiska ståndpunkter. Beslutsprocessen kan också förbättras och vi måste se till att besluten fattas av medlemsstaterna utifrån den välgrundade forskning som har genomförts av oberoende gemenskapsorgan, snarare än utifrån nationella intressen, eller nationell själviskhet om ni föredrar att kalla det så.
Därför är det viktigt att förbättra och förstärka handelsskyddsåtgärderna istället för att vattna ur dem. Å andra sidan kan man på nytt ta itu med de mindre traditionella hoten mot en balanserad och fri världshandel. Metoder som så kallad social eller miljömässig dumpning måste även diskuteras, och vid behov bör nya metoder för att hantera dessa problem verkligen övervägas som en fråga som ligger i gemenskapens intresse.
Jag skulle vilja att Peter Mandelson svarade på följande frågor i kväll: För det första har Dohaförhandlingarna återupptagits, och jag hoppas verkligen att de ska leda till klara framsteg. Med hänsyn till detta, skulle det inte ha varit bättre att vänta på ett framgångsrikt slutförande av de multilaterala förhandlingarna innan man startade den här processen, som kan försvaga vår ställning i Genève?
För det andra, kan Peter Mandelson förklara varför hans tjänstemän redan tillämpar flera diskutabla innovationer som nämns i grönboken, redan innan det offentliga samrådet har avslutats och utan att några diskussioner ägt rum i rådet eller parlamentet?
För det tredje, eftersom det nya handelsskyddssystem som kommissionen har föreslagit ger alla eventuella intresserade parter en roll, inklusive de intressenter som saknar koppling till produktionen av varor som omfattas av undersökningen, tror ni inte att det är dags att låta fackföreningarna lägga fram ett klagomål, vilket förutsågs genom Världshandelsorganisationens (WTO) antidumpningsavtal?
Jag avslutar genom att formellt be Peter Mandelson lämna garantier för att Europaparlamentet kommer att hållas underrättat under alla steg av processen och att man till fullo tar hänsyn till ledamöternas åsikter då man diskuterar denna högst känsliga fråga.
Med grönboken ämnar kommissionen stimulera debatten om användningen av handelsskyddsåtgärder i EU: utjämningstull, antidumpningstull och skyddsåtgärder. Jag menar att det är ett berömvärt initiativ och jag är övertygad om värdet av den här debatten. Vi behöver tala mycket mer om handelspolitiken och om de val som Europeiska kommissionen och rådet gör, och vi behöver se till att besluten diskuteras ordentligt här i parlamentet. Vi måste ge parlamentet mer makt och se till att handelspolitiken synas mer demokratiskt.
Vi genomlever alla ett ögonblick som många anser vara en sorts krisperiod. Vi genomlever en tid då EU-medborgarna frågar sig själva vad EU står för och varför de behöver något så komplicerat som EU överhuvudtaget? Och när dessa rimliga frågor tas upp, är vikten av rollen för ett enat EU i den globaliserade världen och vikten av att ha en gemensam röst som företräder och försvarar 500 miljoner medborgares intressen vid förhandlingar med andra handelspartners på världsmarknaden centrala faktorer att ta hänsyn till.
Den globala handeln och dess inverkan på medborgarnas liv och på framtiden för våra stora, mellanstora och små företag har en avgörande roll i den oro som många känner över det som vi vanligtvis kallar globalisering. Och även om många av oss menar att en del av kritiken inte är mer än simpel demagogi, måste vi förstå den oron och vi måste motsätta oss en rent deterministisk syn på det sätt som den här nya världen utvecklas, på det sätt som handeln genomförs och på det sätt som välstånd och fattigdom sprids.
EU-medborgare som mister sina jobb när ett företag plötsligt beslutar sig för att flytta österut i jakt på större förtjänster kan inte bara få höra att tiderna har förändrats och att de inte kan stå i vägen för utvecklingen. De vill veta vad som pågår, och de som slutligen fattar besluten måste lyssna på deras åsikter.
Vi bör inte glömma att det finns mer än ett recept för ekonomisk tillväxt och handelsutveckling. Det handlar om huruvida politiska alternativ när det gäller om EU:s framtid enbart tillhör enorma detaljhandelsbolag och importörer, eller om vi kan bevara en modell som är anpassad till våra mest grundläggande sociala och miljömässiga hänsynstaganden.
Vår starka tro på frihandel är perfekt anpassad till behovet av att kräva lika villkor. Till och med de mest fredliga länderna i världen, däribland EU, vet att ett fullständigt engagemang för fred inte nödvändigtvis innebär att arméer avskaffas och att alla försvarsmekanismer ska förstöras.
Vi säger alltså ja till de enorma fördelar som den fria handeln ger vår öppna värld, och vi säger ja till det rättvisa införandet av de regler som denna globala handel grundas på.
Vi välkomnar grönboken, vars förtjänst det är att debatten i det här ämnet inleds. Texten och de frågor som den ger upphov till ger redan en antydan om att någonting måste göras för att modifiera det nuvarande gemensamma handelsskyddssystemet."@sv22
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Ignasi Guardans Cambó (ALDE ),"18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,13,4
"deputising for the author"18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,13,4
"dumping"17,12
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples