Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-03-14-Speech-3-337"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech⁶
dcterms:Date	"2007-03-14"^^xsd:date⁶
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Reforma instrumentelor de politică comercială ale UE (dezbatere)⁶
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language⁶
lpv:document identification number	"en.20070314.23.3-337"⁶
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2007-03-14-Speech-3-338⁶
lpv:speaker	lp:Peter Mandelson⁶
lpv:spoken text	"Mr President, by my reckoning 85% of those who have spoken have welcomed this review and therefore I feel gratified in having taken the initiative in proposing it to the Commission. I hope that this fact and the very intelligent and, in the main, very balanced contributions that have been made to this debate will be registered in the Council and by the Presidency. I do not know whether they are represented tonight. It appears not. But, nonetheless, I am sure that this fact will communicate itself. Now, having welcomed the review, people do differ as to whether they want to use it to water down the existing TDI or not. I am going to disappoint both those categories, both the water-downers and the anti-water-downers, by saying that the aim of the review is neither to strengthen nor to weaken our existing trade defence instruments. Instead, the purpose is to make sure that we have rules that are clear, consistent and capable of commanding consensus across the Union. I am not fully satisfied that we are striking the right balance at the moment. Hence the controversy, hence the breakdown in consensus, hence the breakdown in solidarity amongst and between Member States that we have observed in recent cases. It is my responsibility to do what is necessary, if anything can be done, to repair that solidarity and make sure that we have consensus rebuilt. Of course, we are faced with constant dilemmas in exercising and applying these rules. One person’s legitimate protection is another person’s protectionism and that is where judgement needs to be applied on the basis of the objective analysis undertaken by the Commission. But I have heard the call of many in this House to ensure that our anti-dumping system is clear, transparent and objective. I have heard the concerns expressed about the length and lack of efficiency of the process and I have heard those who have said that they want environmental concerns better reflected. I am not sure whether I will ever be able to fashion a set of instruments that will enable us to use trade defence to tackle global warming or bring climate security to the world. Of course, if this is a challenge that Members of this Parliament want to set us, then we will rise to it, but I am not sure that we will be successful, just as I am not entirely sure that we will be able to use trade defence instruments to address exchange rate policy either. I am very grateful to those who have spoken and raised very important points. My own view, just to go back to the opening speaker in this debate, is that if you want to make and sustain the case for economic openness in Europe, which I do, then the people of Europe have to feel confident that, when they are unfairly threatened or harmed by the anti-competitive behaviour of others, that they have someone on their side: that someone is us. It is the essential and growing role of the European Union and of the European Commission in this global age. It does not make our task easier, but it makes it all the more necessary and important and it is a responsibility that, for my own part, I intend to see discharged in a fair, objective and dispassionate way."@en⁴
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, by my reckoning 85% of those who have spoken have welcomed this review and therefore I feel gratified in having taken the initiative in proposing it to the Commission. I hope that this fact and the very intelligent and, in the main, very balanced contributions that have been made to this debate will be registered in the Council and by the Presidency. I do not know whether they are represented tonight. It appears not. But, nonetheless, I am sure that this fact will communicate itself. Now, having welcomed the review, people do differ as to whether they want to use it to water down the existing TDI or not. I am going to disappoint both those categories, both the water-downers and the anti-water-downers, by saying that the aim of the review is neither to strengthen nor to weaken our existing trade defence instruments. Instead, the purpose is to make sure that we have rules that are clear, consistent and capable of commanding consensus across the Union. I am not fully satisfied that we are striking the right balance at the moment. Hence the controversy, hence the breakdown in consensus, hence the breakdown in solidarity amongst and between Member States that we have observed in recent cases. It is my responsibility to do what is necessary, if anything can be done, to repair that solidarity and make sure that we have consensus rebuilt. Of course, we are faced with constant dilemmas in exercising and applying these rules. One person’s legitimate protection is another person’s protectionism and that is where judgement needs to be applied on the basis of the objective analysis undertaken by the Commission. But I have heard the call of many in this House to ensure that our anti-dumping system is clear, transparent and objective. I have heard the concerns expressed about the length and lack of efficiency of the process and I have heard those who have said that they want environmental concerns better reflected. I am not sure whether I will ever be able to fashion a set of instruments that will enable us to use trade defence to tackle global warming or bring climate security to the world. Of course, if this is a challenge that Members of this Parliament want to set us, then we will rise to it, but I am not sure that we will be successful, just as I am not entirely sure that we will be able to use trade defence instruments to address exchange rate policy either. I am very grateful to those who have spoken and raised very important points. My own view, just to go back to the opening speaker in this debate, is that if you want to make and sustain the case for economic openness in Europe, which I do, then the people of Europe have to feel confident that, when they are unfairly threatened or harmed by the anti-competitive behaviour of others, that they have someone on their side: that someone is us. It is the essential and growing role of the European Union and of the European Commission in this global age. It does not make our task easier, but it makes it all the more necessary and important and it is a responsibility that, for my own part, I intend to see discharged in a fair, objective and dispassionate way."@cs¹ "Hr. formand! Det er mit indtryk, at 85 % af dem, der har talt, har budt denne revision velkommen, og jeg er derfor glad for, at jeg har foreslået Kommissionen at gennemføre denne. Jeg håber, at Rådet og formandskabet vil være opmærksom på denne kendsgerning og de meget intelligente og generelt meget afbalancerede bidrag til denne debat. Jeg er ikke klar over, om de er repræsenteret i aften. Det er tilsyneladende ikke tilfældet. Jeg er ikke desto mindre sikker på, at denne kendsgerning vil trænge igennem. Selv om denne revision er blevet positivt modtaget, er der delte meninger om, hvorvidt den skal bruges til at udvande de eksisterende handelspolitiske beskyttelsesforanstaltninger eller ej. Jeg kommer til at skuffe begge grupper, både tilhængerne og modstanderne af udvanding, idet formålet med revisionen hverken er at styrke eller svække vores nuværende handelspolitiske beskyttelsesforanstaltninger. Formålet er derimod at sikre, at vi har klare og konsistente regler, som der er enighed om i hele EU. Jeg er ikke helt sikker på, at vi har fundet den rette balance i øjeblikket. Dette er baggrunden for konflikterne, den manglende konsensus og den manglende solidaritet blandt medlemsstater, som vi har konstateret i de seneste tilfælde. Det er mit ansvar at træffe de nødvendige foranstaltninger med henblik på at genskabe denne solidaritet og sikre, at der på ny skabes konsensus, i det omfang det er muligt.. Vi står naturligvis til stadighed over for en række vanskelige valg i forbindelse med anvendelsen af disse regler. Det, der er en berettiget beskyttelse for den ene, er protektionisme for den anden, og det er her, der skal foretages en vurdering på grundlag af Kommissionens objektive analyse. Jeg har bidt mærke i de krav, som mange af parlamentsmedlemmerne har stillet, om at sikre klare, gennemsigtige og objektive antidumpingsforanstaltninger. Jeg har noteret mig den bekymring, der er blevet givet udtryk for, om processens varighed og manglende effektivitet, og jeg bidt mærke i kravet om, at der i højere grad skal tages højde for miljøhensyn. Jeg er ikke sikker på, at jeg nogensinde vil være i stand til at udarbejde et sæt af instrumenter, der vil gøre det muligt for os at anvende handelspolitiske beskyttelsesinstrumenter til at imødegå den globale opvarmning eller skabe global klimasikkerhed. Hvis medlemmerne af Europa-Parlamentet ønsker, at vi skal tage denne udfordring op, vil vi naturligvis gøre dette, men jeg er ikke sikker på, at det vil lykkes os, og jeg er heller ikke helt sikker på, at vi vil være i stand til at anvende handelspolitiske beskyttelsesinstrumenter i forbindelse med valutakurspolitikken. Jeg takker alle talerne for de meget vigtige spørgsmål, der er blevet rejst. Under henvisning til åbningstalerens bemærkninger er min personlige holdning, at borgerne i Europa er nødt til at have tillid til, at de har nogle, der vil hjælpe dem, når de behandles uretfærdigt eller lider skabe som følge af andres konkurrencebegrænsende adfærd, hvis vi ønsker at skabe og fastholde åbenhed i Europa, hvilket jeg gør. Det er os, der skal hjælpe. EU og Kommissionen spiller en afgørende og voksende rolle på dette område i denne globale tidsalder. Det gør ikke vores opgave nemmere, men det gør den så meget desto mere nødvendig og betydningsfuld, og jeg agter at varetage denne opgave på en retfærdig, objektiv og lidenskabsløs måde."@da² ". Herr Präsident! Nach meinem Dafürhalten haben 85 % der Redner diese Überprüfung begrüßt, und ich bin daher froh, die Initiative ergriffen und der Kommission diese Reform vorgeschlagen zu haben. Ich hoffe, dies und Ihre intelligenten und größtenteils ausgewogenen Anmerkungen werden vom Rat und dem Vorsitz zur Kenntnis genommen. Mir ist nicht bekannt, ob sie heute Abend hier vertreten sind. Offensichtlich nicht. Nichtsdestotrotz bin ich mir sicher, dass diese Tatsache nicht unbemerkt bleiben wird. Trotz der allgemeinen Zustimmung zu dieser Überprüfung gehen die Meinungen darüber, inwieweit damit die bestehenden handelspolitischen Schutzinstrumente abgeschwächt werden sollten, jedoch auseinander. Ich werde die Verfechter beider Positionen enttäuschen müssen, sowohl die Befürworter einer Abschwächung als auch deren Gegner, denn das Ziel dieser Überprüfung besteht nicht darin, unsere gegenwärtigen handelspolitischen Schutzinstrumente zu stärken oder zu schwächen. Ganz im Gegenteil. Es geht darum, für eindeutige, einheitliche und gemeinschaftsweit konsensfähige Vorschriften zu sorgen. Ich bin nicht ganz sicher, ob wir dieser Zielsetzung im Moment gerecht werden. Daher rühren auch die Kontroversen, die fehlende Kompromissbereitschaft und die mangelnde Solidarität in und zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten, die in jüngster Zeit zu beobachten waren. Ich trage die Verantwortung dafür, sofern dies möglich ist, die nötigen Maßnahmen zu ergreifen, um diese Solidarität und den Konsens wieder herzustellen. Natürlich stehen wir bei der Umsetzung dieser Vorschriften immer wieder vor Schwierigkeiten. Was der eine als berechtigten Schutz betrachtet, sieht der andere als Protektionismus, und hier müssen wir auf der Grundlage der objektiven Untersuchung der Kommission eine Entscheidung fällen. Allerdings haben viele in diesem Hohen Haus gefordert, dass unser Antidumpingsystem eindeutig, transparent und objektiv sein muss. Mir ist nicht entgangen, dass Bedenken über die Langwierigkeit und die mangelnde Effizienz des Prozesses geäußert wurden, und dass sich einige Abgeordnete eine bessere Berücksichtigung von Umweltbelangen wünschen. Ich bin mir nicht sicher, ob ich jemals ein Instrumentarium zusammenstellen kann, das es uns erlaubt, handelspolitische Schutzmaßnahmen gegen die Erderwärmung und für den weltweiten Klimaschutz einzusetzen. Doch wenn uns die Abgeordneten dieses Parlaments diese Aufgabe stellen wollen, dann werden wir uns ihrer annehmen. Allerdings bin ich mir nicht sicher, ob wir dabei Erfolg haben werden, und genauso wenig, ob wir handelspolitische Schutzinstrumente nutzen können, um die Wechselkurspolitik anzugehen. Ich möchte allen Rednern danken, die wichtige Aspekte angesprochen haben. Ich persönlich vertrete die Auffassung, und möchte mich dabei dem Eröffnungsredner dieser Aussprache anschließen, dass man als Verfechter eines offenen Wirtschaftssystems in Europa – und zu dieser Gruppe gehöre ich – dafür Sorge tragen muss, dass die Unionsbürger sicher sein können, jemanden an ihrer Seite zu haben, wenn sie durch das wettbewerbsfeindliche Verhalten anderer auf ungerechte Weise bedroht werden oder ihnen Schaden zugefügt wird: Dieser Jemand sind wir. Darin besteht die wesentliche und immer mehr an Bedeutung gewinnende Rolle der Europäischen Kommission in unserem globalen Zeitalter. Unsere Aufgabe wird dadurch nicht erleichtert, aber umso notwendiger und wichtiger, und dieser Verantwortung sollten wir meines Erachtens auf faire, objektive und sachliche Weise gerecht werden."@de⁹ ". Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κατά τις εκτιμήσεις μου, το 85% όσων έλαβαν τον λόγο χαιρέτισαν αυτή την αναθεώρηση και, ως εκ τούτου, χαίρομαι διότι ανέλαβα την πρωτοβουλία να την προτείνω στην Επιτροπή. Ευελπιστώ ότι αυτό το γεγονός και οι πολύ λογικές και, σε γενικές γραμμές, ισορροπημένες παρεμβάσεις σε αυτή τη συζήτηση θα ληφθούν υπόψη από το Συμβούλιο και από την Προεδρία. Δεν γνωρίζω αν εκπροσωπούνται στην αποψινή συζήτηση. Από ό,τι φαίνεται, μάλλον όχι· εντούτοις, είμαι βέβαιος ότι αυτό το γεγονός θα γίνει ούτως ή άλλως γνωστό. Το γεγονός, βεβαίως, ότι η αναθεώρηση επικροτήθηκε δεν σημαίνει ότι δεν υπάρχουν διαφορές απόψεων όσον αφορά το εάν επιθυμούμε να την χρησιμοποιήσουμε για την αποδυνάμωση ή την ενίσχυση των υφιστάμενων μέσων εμπορικής άμυνας. Θα απογοητεύσω και τις δύο αυτές κατηγορίες, και τους υπέρμαχους της αποδυνάμωσης και τους πολεμίους της, δηλώνοντας ότι σκοπός της αναθεώρησης δεν είναι ούτε η ενίσχυση ούτε η υποβάθμιση των υφιστάμενων κοινοτικών μέσων εμπορικής άμυνας. Απεναντίας, πρόθεσή μας είναι να διασφαλίσουμε όχι διαθέτουμε κανόνες σαφείς και συνεπείς, οι οποίοι τυγχάνουν της κοινής αποδοχής στο σύνολο της Ένωσης. Δεν μπορώ να ισχυριστώ με βεβαιότητα ότι επικρατεί επί του παρόντος η ενδεδειγμένη ισορροπία. Σε αυτό οφείλεται η αντιπαράθεση, η ανατροπή της συναίνεσης και η έλλειψη αλληλεγγύης εντός και μεταξύ των κρατών μελών που παρατηρήσαμε προσφάτως. Έχω ευθύνη να πράξω ό,τι είναι δυνατόν, εφόσον μπορεί να επιτευχθεί κάποιο αποτέλεσμα, προκειμένου να αποκατασταθεί η αλληλεγγύη και να εξασφαλιστεί εκ νέου η συναίνεση. Βεβαίως, βρισκόμαστε διαρκώς αντιμέτωποι με διλήμματα όσον αφορά την άσκηση και την εφαρμογή αυτών των κανόνων. Κάτι που για ένα άτομο συνιστά εύλογη προστασία για κάποιο άλλο είναι προστατευτισμός, και σε αυτές τις περιπτώσεις είναι αναγκαίο να κρίνουμε βάσει της αντικειμενικής ανάλυσης την οποία διενεργεί η Επιτροπή. Άκουσα, όμως, την έκκληση πολλών βουλευτών του Σώματος να διασφαλιστεί η σαφήνεια, η διαφάνεια και η αντικειμενικότητα του ευρωπαϊκού συστήματος αντιντάμπινγκ. Άκουσα τις ανησυχίες που εκφράστηκαν σχετικά με τη διάρκεια και την αναποτελεσματικότητα της διαδικασίας, καθώς και τους ομιλητές που δήλωσαν ότι επιθυμούν να λαμβάνονται περισσότερο υπόψη τα περιβαλλοντικά ζητήματα. Δεν είμαι βέβαιος αν θα μπορέσω ποτέ να καταρτίσω μια δέσμη μέσων τα οποία θα μας επιτρέψουν να χρησιμοποιούμε την εμπορική άμυνα για την καταπολέμηση της αύξησης της θερμοκρασίας του πλανήτη ή να προσφέρουμε κλιματική ασφάλεια στον κόσμο. Βεβαίως, αν οι βουλευτές του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου επιθυμούν να μας αναθέσουν τον χειρισμό μιας τέτοιας πρόκλησης, θα ανταποκριθούμε σε ό,τι μας ζητηθεί, όμως δεν είμαι βέβαιος ότι θα επιτύχουμε αυτόν τον στόχο, όπως δεν είμαι εντελώς σίγουρος ότι θα μπορέσουμε να χρησιμοποιήσουμε τα μέσα εμπορικής άμυνας για τον χειρισμό της πολιτικής συναλλαγματικών ισοτιμιών. Είμαι ιδιαιτέρως ευγνώμων σε όσους έλαβαν τον λόγο και έθιξαν πολύ σημαντικά ζητήματα. Η δική μου άποψη –για να επανέλθω στο περιεχόμενο της παρέμβασης του αρχικού ομιλητή– είναι ότι, αν επιθυμούμε να προωθήσουμε την ανοικτή οικονομία στην Ευρώπη, που προσωπικά επιθυμώ, τότε οι πολίτες της Ευρώπης πρέπει να νιώθουν σίγουροι, όταν απειλούνται αθέμιτα ή βλάπτονται από αντιανταγωνιστικές πρακτικές τρίτων, ότι έχουν κάποιον στο πλευρό τους: αυτός ο κάποιος είμαστε εμείς. Είναι ο αναγκαίος και αυξανόμενος ρόλος της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής στην παγκοσμιοποιημένη εποχή μας. Αυτό δεν διευκολύνει το έργο μας, αλλά το καθιστά ακόμη περισσότερο αναγκαίο και σημαντικό, ενώ αποτελεί καθήκον το οποίο, από τη δική μου πλευρά, θα φροντίσω να εκτελώ με τρόπο δίκαιο, αντικειμενικό και νηφάλιο."@el¹⁰ ". Señor Presidente, al reconocer que el 85 % de los que han intervenido han acogido de buen grado esta revisión, me siento satisfecho de haber tomado la iniciativa de proponerla a la Comisión. Espero que el Consejo y la Presidencia tomen nota de este hecho y de las contribuciones inteligentísimas y en su mayoría equilibradas que se han hecho en este debate. No sé si están representados aquí esta tarde. Parece que no, pero estoy seguro de que este hecho llegará a su conocimiento por sí solo. Pues bien, dentro de la buena acogida dispensada a la revisión se han manifestado diferencias con respecto a si se desea que sirva o no para suavizar los instrumentos de defensa comercial existentes. Voy a decepcionar a ambos bandos, tanto a los que quieren suavizarlos como a los que no, afirmando que el objetivo de la revisión no es reforzar ni debilitar nuestros instrumentos de defensa comercial actuales. El objetivo es garantizar que tengamos normas que son claras, coherentes y capaces de concitar el consenso en toda la Unión. No estoy plenamente convencido de que actualmente hayamos conseguido el equilibrio correcto. De ahí la controversia, la ruptura del consenso y la ruptura de la solidaridad en el seno de los Estados miembros y entre ellos que hemos observado en casos recientes. Es responsabilidad mía hacer lo que sea necesario, si es que se puede hacer algo, por recuperar dicha solidaridad y asegurar la reconstrucción del consenso. Por supuesto, al ejercer y aplicar estas normas nos enfrentamos a constantes dilemas. La protección legítima de una persona es proteccionismo para la otra, y es en este punto donde hay que tomar una resolución sobre la base del análisis objetivo emprendido por la Comisión. Pero he podido escuchar la petición de muchos diputados a esta Asamblea de que se garantice que nuestro sistema antidumping sea claro, transparente y objetivo. He oído las preocupaciones expresadas sobre la duración y la falta de eficiencia del proceso y he oído a aquellos que han dicho que quieren que queden mejor reflejadas las preocupaciones ambientales. No estoy seguro de si algún día podré crear una serie de instrumentos que nos permitan emplear la defensa comercial para hacer frente al calentamiento global o dar seguridad al mundo. Se trata por supuesto de un reto que quieren lanzarnos los diputados al Parlamento Europeo, con lo que tendríamos que estar a la altura, pero no estoy seguro de que lo consigamos, como tampoco estoy plenamente seguro de que podamos emplear los instrumentos de defensa comercial para abordar la política de tipos de cambio. Quisiera das las gracias a quienes han intervenido y planteado cuestiones muy importantes. Desde mi punto de vista, retomando lo dicho por el primer orador en este debate, si ustedes desean realizar y defender la apertura económica en Europa, al igual que yo, entonces los ciudadanos de Europa deberán confiar en que, cuando sean objeto de un trato desleal o se vean afectados por el comportamiento anticompetitivo de otros, tienen a alguien de su lado: ese alguien somos nosotros. Es el papel esencial y cada vez mayor de la Unión Europea y la Comisión Europea en esta era global. Esto no facilita nuestra labor, sino que la hace aún más necesaria e importante y se trata de una responsabilidad que, por mi parte, pretendo que se realice de forma justa, objetiva y desapasionada."@es²¹ "Mr President, by my reckoning 85% of those who have spoken have welcomed this review and therefore I feel gratified in having taken the initiative in proposing it to the Commission. I hope that this fact and the very intelligent and, in the main, very balanced contributions that have been made to this debate will be registered in the Council and by the Presidency. I do not know whether they are represented tonight. It appears not. But, nonetheless, I am sure that this fact will communicate itself. Now, having welcomed the review, people do differ as to whether they want to use it to water down the existing TDI or not. I am going to disappoint both those categories, both the water-downers and the anti-water-downers, by saying that the aim of the review is neither to strengthen nor to weaken our existing trade defence instruments. Instead, the purpose is to make sure that we have rules that are clear, consistent and capable of commanding consensus across the Union. I am not fully satisfied that we are striking the right balance at the moment. Hence the controversy, hence the breakdown in consensus, hence the breakdown in solidarity amongst and between Member States that we have observed in recent cases. It is my responsibility to do what is necessary, if anything can be done, to repair that solidarity and make sure that we have consensus rebuilt. Of course, we are faced with constant dilemmas in exercising and applying these rules. One person’s legitimate protection is another person’s protectionism and that is where judgement needs to be applied on the basis of the objective analysis undertaken by the Commission. But I have heard the call of many in this House to ensure that our anti-dumping system is clear, transparent and objective. I have heard the concerns expressed about the length and lack of efficiency of the process and I have heard those who have said that they want environmental concerns better reflected. I am not sure whether I will ever be able to fashion a set of instruments that will enable us to use trade defence to tackle global warming or bring climate security to the world. Of course, if this is a challenge that Members of this Parliament want to set us, then we will rise to it, but I am not sure that we will be successful, just as I am not entirely sure that we will be able to use trade defence instruments to address exchange rate policy either. I am very grateful to those who have spoken and raised very important points. My own view, just to go back to the opening speaker in this debate, is that if you want to make and sustain the case for economic openness in Europe, which I do, then the people of Europe have to feel confident that, when they are unfairly threatened or harmed by the anti-competitive behaviour of others, that they have someone on their side: that someone is us. It is the essential and growing role of the European Union and of the European Commission in this global age. It does not make our task easier, but it makes it all the more necessary and important and it is a responsibility that, for my own part, I intend to see discharged in a fair, objective and dispassionate way."@et⁵ ". Arvoisa puhemies, laskujeni mukaan 85 prosenttia puhujista piti tätä tarkastelua tervetulleena, joten olen tyytyväinen siihen, että tein aloitteen ja ehdotin asiaa komissiolle. Toivottavasti neuvosto ja puheenjohtajavaltio panevat merkille tämän seikan sekä erittäin älykkäät ja pääasiassa hyvin tasapuoliset huomautukset, joita tämän keskustelun aikana esitettiin. En tiedä, onko niiden edustajia läsnä tänä iltana. Ilmeisesti ei. Olen kuitenkin varma, että asiat kantautuvat heidän korviinsa. Vaikka tarkastelua pidettiin tervetulleena, mielipiteet jakautuivat siinä, halutaanko tarkastelussa vesittää nykyiset kaupan suojakeinot vai ei. Aiheutan pettymyksen molempien näkökantojen edustajille, sekä vesittäjille että vesittämisen vastustajille, toteamalla, että tarkastelun tarkoituksena ei ole vahvistaa eikä heikentää nykyisiä kaupan suojakeinoja. Sen sijaan tarkoituksena on varmistaa, että meillä on säännöt, jotka ovat selkeät ja johdonmukaiset ja joista ollaan yksimielisiä kaikkialla Euroopan unionissa. En ole täysin vakuuttunut siitä, että ratkaisu olisi tällä hetkellä todella tasapuolinen. Tästä johtuvat ristiriidat, ja tämän vuoksi yksimielisyys on säröillyt ja solidaarisuus hävinnyt jäsenvaltioiden keskuudessa ja välillä, kuten viimeaikaisista tapauksista on käynyt ilmi. Velvollisuuteni on tehdä se, mikä on välttämätöntä – jos jotain voidaan tehdä – solidaarisuuden korjaamiseksi ja sen takaamiseksi, että yksimielisyyteen päästään jälleen. Näiden sääntöjen täytäntöönpanossa ja soveltamisessa on tietenkin jatkuvia ongelmia. Yhdelle laillinen suojelu on toiselle protektionismia. Tällöin päätös on tehtävä komission toteuttaman puolueettoman analyysin perusteella. Kuulin monien vaativan täällä parlamentissa, että polkumyyntijärjestelmämme selkeys, avoimuus ja puolueettomuus on varmistettava. Kuulin toteamukset siitä, että prosessi on pitkä ja tehoton, ja kuulin, että muutamat ilmoittivat haluavansa, että ympäristönäkökohdat otetaan paremmin huomioon. En ole varma, pystynkö koskaan laatimaan sellaisia kaupan suojakeinoja, joita käyttämällä voitaisiin puuttua ilmaston lämpenemiseen tai taata ilmastoturvallisuus maailmaan. Mikäli parlamentin jäsenet haluavat asettaa meille tällaisen haasteen, tartumme toki siihen, mutten ole varma, onnistummeko siinä. En ole täysin varma siitäkään, voidaanko kaupan suojakeinoja käyttää valuuttakurssipolitiikan ohjaamisessa. Olen hyvin kiitollinen niille, jotka puhuivat ja ottivat esille tärkeitä näkökohtia. Palatakseni tämän keskustelun avanneeseen puhujaan, minun näkemykseni on, että jos Euroopassa halutaan taata ja säilyttää avoin talous – kuten minä haluan – Euroopan unionin kansalaisten täytyy voida luottaa siihen, että kun heitä uhataan tai haitataan epäreilulla tavalla muiden kilpailunvastaisilla käytännöillä, heillä on joku puolellaan – me. Tämä on Euroopan unionin ja Euroopan komission tärkeä ja kasvava rooli tällä globaalistumisen aikakaudella. Se ei helpota tehtäväämme, mutta se tekee siitä entistäkin tarpeellisemman ja tärkeämmän. Aion omalta osaltani taata, että tämä vastuu kannetaan oikeudenmukaisella, puolueettomalla ja maltillisella tavalla."@fi⁷ ". Monsieur le Président, d’après mes calculs, 85% de ceux qui ont pris la parole sont favorables à cette révision et c’est pourquoi je suis très content d’avoir pris l’initiative de la proposer à la Commission. J’espère que ce fait et les contributions très intelligentes et, en général, très pondérées qui ont été apportées durant ce débat seront enregistrés au Conseil et par la présidence. J’ignore s’ils sont représentés ce soir. Il semble que ce ne soit pas le cas. Toutefois, je suis sûr que ce fait arrivera à leurs oreilles. Maintenant, la révision ayant été accueillie chaleureusement, les avis diffèrent quant à savoir si l’on veut l’utiliser pour assouplir les instruments de défense commerciale existants ou pas. Je vais décevoir ces deux catégories de personnes, celles qui veulent assouplir et celles qui ne veulent pas, en disant que l’objectif de la révision n’est ni de renforcer ni d’affaiblir nos instruments de défense commerciale existants. En effet, son objectif est de veiller à ce que nos règles soient claires, cohérentes et capables de créer un consensus à travers l’Union. Je ne suis pas tout à fait convaincu que nous ayons trouvé le juste milieu pour le moment. D’où la controverse, la rupture du consensus, la dégradation de la solidarité parmi et entre les États membres que nous avons observée récemment. Il est de ma responsabilité de faire le nécessaire, si, du moins, quelque chose peut être fait, pour réparer cette solidarité et veiller à ce que le consensus soit rétabli. Bien sûr, nous devons faire face à des dilemmes constants dans l’exécution et l’application de ces règles. La protection légitime de l’un équivaut au protectionnisme de l’autre et c’est là qu’il faut avoir recours au bon sens sur la base de l’analyse objective entreprise par la Commission. Cependant, j’ai entendu l’appel de nombreuses personnes dans cette Assemblée afin de garantir que notre système antidumping soit clair, transparent et objectif. J’ai entendu les inquiétudes exprimées à propos de la longueur et du manque d’efficacité du processus et j’ai entendu ceux qui ont dit qu’ils souhaitaient que les préoccupations environnementales soient mieux reflétées. Je ne suis pas sûr d’être capable de créer une série d’instruments qui nous permettront d’utiliser la défense commerciale pour combattre le réchauffement climatique ou apporter une sécurité climatique à la planète. Bien sûr, s’il s’agit d’un défi que les députés veulent nous lancer, alors nous le relèverons, mais je ne suis pas sûr que nous soyons victorieux, pas plus que je ne suis tout à fait certain que nous soyons à même d’utiliser les instruments de défense commerciale dans la politique du taux de change. Je remercie vivement ceux qui ont pris la parole et soulevé des points très importants. Pour en revenir à l’orateur qui a ouvert ce débat, mon opinion est que si vous voulez soutenir et défendre l’ouverture économique en Europe, ce qui est mon cas, les Européens doivent avoir la certitude que, lorsque le comportement anticoncurrentiel d’un tiers les menace ou leur porte préjudice, ils ont quelqu’un de leur côté: ce quelqu’un, c’est nous. Tel est le rôle essentiel et croissant de l’Union européenne et de la Commission européenne en cette époque mondiale. Cela ne facilite pas notre tâche, mais elle en est d’autant plus nécessaire et importante et il s’agit d’une responsabilité que, pour ma part, j’ai l’intention d’exercer d’une manière équitable, objective et impartiale."@fr⁸ "Mr President, by my reckoning 85% of those who have spoken have welcomed this review and therefore I feel gratified in having taken the initiative in proposing it to the Commission. I hope that this fact and the very intelligent and, in the main, very balanced contributions that have been made to this debate will be registered in the Council and by the Presidency. I do not know whether they are represented tonight. It appears not. But, nonetheless, I am sure that this fact will communicate itself. Now, having welcomed the review, people do differ as to whether they want to use it to water down the existing TDI or not. I am going to disappoint both those categories, both the water-downers and the anti-water-downers, by saying that the aim of the review is neither to strengthen nor to weaken our existing trade defence instruments. Instead, the purpose is to make sure that we have rules that are clear, consistent and capable of commanding consensus across the Union. I am not fully satisfied that we are striking the right balance at the moment. Hence the controversy, hence the breakdown in consensus, hence the breakdown in solidarity amongst and between Member States that we have observed in recent cases. It is my responsibility to do what is necessary, if anything can be done, to repair that solidarity and make sure that we have consensus rebuilt. Of course, we are faced with constant dilemmas in exercising and applying these rules. One person’s legitimate protection is another person’s protectionism and that is where judgement needs to be applied on the basis of the objective analysis undertaken by the Commission. But I have heard the call of many in this House to ensure that our anti-dumping system is clear, transparent and objective. I have heard the concerns expressed about the length and lack of efficiency of the process and I have heard those who have said that they want environmental concerns better reflected. I am not sure whether I will ever be able to fashion a set of instruments that will enable us to use trade defence to tackle global warming or bring climate security to the world. Of course, if this is a challenge that Members of this Parliament want to set us, then we will rise to it, but I am not sure that we will be successful, just as I am not entirely sure that we will be able to use trade defence instruments to address exchange rate policy either. I am very grateful to those who have spoken and raised very important points. My own view, just to go back to the opening speaker in this debate, is that if you want to make and sustain the case for economic openness in Europe, which I do, then the people of Europe have to feel confident that, when they are unfairly threatened or harmed by the anti-competitive behaviour of others, that they have someone on their side: that someone is us. It is the essential and growing role of the European Union and of the European Commission in this global age. It does not make our task easier, but it makes it all the more necessary and important and it is a responsibility that, for my own part, I intend to see discharged in a fair, objective and dispassionate way."@hu¹¹ ". Signor Presidente, in base ai miei calcoli, l’85 per cento degli oratori intervenuti ha accolto con favore la revisione, di conseguenza sono soddisfatto di aver preso l’iniziativa di proporla alla Commissione. Auspico che il Consiglio e la Presidenza prendano atto di ciò e del fatto che sono stati offerti contributi molto intelligenti e complessivamente molto equilibrati al dibattito. Non so se tali organi siano rappresentati qui stasera. Non mi pare. Cionondimeno, sono certo che il tutto non passerà inosservato. Ora, benché la revisione sia stata accolta con favore, vi sono opinioni divergenti sull’utilizzo o meno della medesima per indebolire i TDI esistenti. Ribadendo che lo scopo della revisione non è quello di rafforzare né di diluire i nostri strumenti di difesa commerciale esistenti, so che deluderò entrambe le “fazioni”, sia quella di chi è a favore di un ammorbidimento sia quella dei contrari. Fine della revisione è garantirci norme chiare, coerenti e capaci di creare il consenso in tutta l’Unione. Non sono pienamente convinto che al momento l’equilibrio creato sia il più opportuno. Di qui le controversie, il calo del consenso, il venir meno della solidarietà tra i paesi membri che abbiamo osservato nei casi più recenti. E’ mia responsabilità fare il necessario, se possibile, per porre rimedio a tale carenza di solidarietà e per garantire il ripristino del consenso. Siamo ovviamente di fronte a dilemmi continui per quanto riguarda l’esercizio e l’applicazione delle norme. La protezione legittima di uno rappresenta il protezionismo dell’altro, ed è qui che va applicata la capacità di giudizio sulla base dell’analisi obiettiva intrapresa dalla Commissione. Tuttavia, ho anche sentito l’appello rivolto da molti onorevoli deputati affinché il nostro sistema sia chiaro, trasparente e obiettivo. Ho preso atto delle perplessità espresse a proposito della lunghezza e dell’inefficienza del processo, e ho ascoltato l’opinione di coloro che ritengono che occorra una maggiore rappresentanza delle problematiche ambientali. Non sono certo di riuscire a mettere a punto un insieme di strumenti che ci consentano di utilizzare la difesa commerciale per affrontare il riscaldamento climatico o garantire al mondo la stabilità del clima. Ovviamente, se gli onorevoli deputati desiderano chiamarci a rispondere a tale sfida, noi non ci tireremo indietro, ma non credo che riusciremo a superarla, né sono pienamente convinto che potremo utilizzare gli strumenti di difesa commerciale per la politica dei cambi. Sono grato a coloro che sono intervenuti e hanno sollevato punti molto importanti. La mia opinione, per tornare all’oratore iniziale del dibattito, è che se si vuole sollevare e difendere la questione dell’apertura economica in Europa, come desidero fare, i cittadini europei, se subiscono minacce di trattamenti sleali o se danneggiati dal comportamento anticompetitivo altrui, devono avere la certezza di poter contare su qualcuno: e quel qualcuno siamo noi. E’ il ruolo essenziale e crescente dell’Unione europea e della Commissione europea in quest’epoca globalizzata. Ne consegue che il nostro compito non è affatto più semplice, bensì quanto mai necessario e importante, ed è una responsabilità che io, da parte mia, intendo assumermi in modo equo, obiettivo e imparziale."@it¹² "Mr President, by my reckoning 85% of those who have spoken have welcomed this review and therefore I feel gratified in having taken the initiative in proposing it to the Commission. I hope that this fact and the very intelligent and, in the main, very balanced contributions that have been made to this debate will be registered in the Council and by the Presidency. I do not know whether they are represented tonight. It appears not. But, nonetheless, I am sure that this fact will communicate itself. Now, having welcomed the review, people do differ as to whether they want to use it to water down the existing TDI or not. I am going to disappoint both those categories, both the water-downers and the anti-water-downers, by saying that the aim of the review is neither to strengthen nor to weaken our existing trade defence instruments. Instead, the purpose is to make sure that we have rules that are clear, consistent and capable of commanding consensus across the Union. I am not fully satisfied that we are striking the right balance at the moment. Hence the controversy, hence the breakdown in consensus, hence the breakdown in solidarity amongst and between Member States that we have observed in recent cases. It is my responsibility to do what is necessary, if anything can be done, to repair that solidarity and make sure that we have consensus rebuilt. Of course, we are faced with constant dilemmas in exercising and applying these rules. One person’s legitimate protection is another person’s protectionism and that is where judgement needs to be applied on the basis of the objective analysis undertaken by the Commission. But I have heard the call of many in this House to ensure that our anti-dumping system is clear, transparent and objective. I have heard the concerns expressed about the length and lack of efficiency of the process and I have heard those who have said that they want environmental concerns better reflected. I am not sure whether I will ever be able to fashion a set of instruments that will enable us to use trade defence to tackle global warming or bring climate security to the world. Of course, if this is a challenge that Members of this Parliament want to set us, then we will rise to it, but I am not sure that we will be successful, just as I am not entirely sure that we will be able to use trade defence instruments to address exchange rate policy either. I am very grateful to those who have spoken and raised very important points. My own view, just to go back to the opening speaker in this debate, is that if you want to make and sustain the case for economic openness in Europe, which I do, then the people of Europe have to feel confident that, when they are unfairly threatened or harmed by the anti-competitive behaviour of others, that they have someone on their side: that someone is us. It is the essential and growing role of the European Union and of the European Commission in this global age. It does not make our task easier, but it makes it all the more necessary and important and it is a responsibility that, for my own part, I intend to see discharged in a fair, objective and dispassionate way."@lt¹⁴ "Mr President, by my reckoning 85% of those who have spoken have welcomed this review and therefore I feel gratified in having taken the initiative in proposing it to the Commission. I hope that this fact and the very intelligent and, in the main, very balanced contributions that have been made to this debate will be registered in the Council and by the Presidency. I do not know whether they are represented tonight. It appears not. But, nonetheless, I am sure that this fact will communicate itself. Now, having welcomed the review, people do differ as to whether they want to use it to water down the existing TDI or not. I am going to disappoint both those categories, both the water-downers and the anti-water-downers, by saying that the aim of the review is neither to strengthen nor to weaken our existing trade defence instruments. Instead, the purpose is to make sure that we have rules that are clear, consistent and capable of commanding consensus across the Union. I am not fully satisfied that we are striking the right balance at the moment. Hence the controversy, hence the breakdown in consensus, hence the breakdown in solidarity amongst and between Member States that we have observed in recent cases. It is my responsibility to do what is necessary, if anything can be done, to repair that solidarity and make sure that we have consensus rebuilt. Of course, we are faced with constant dilemmas in exercising and applying these rules. One person’s legitimate protection is another person’s protectionism and that is where judgement needs to be applied on the basis of the objective analysis undertaken by the Commission. But I have heard the call of many in this House to ensure that our anti-dumping system is clear, transparent and objective. I have heard the concerns expressed about the length and lack of efficiency of the process and I have heard those who have said that they want environmental concerns better reflected. I am not sure whether I will ever be able to fashion a set of instruments that will enable us to use trade defence to tackle global warming or bring climate security to the world. Of course, if this is a challenge that Members of this Parliament want to set us, then we will rise to it, but I am not sure that we will be successful, just as I am not entirely sure that we will be able to use trade defence instruments to address exchange rate policy either. I am very grateful to those who have spoken and raised very important points. My own view, just to go back to the opening speaker in this debate, is that if you want to make and sustain the case for economic openness in Europe, which I do, then the people of Europe have to feel confident that, when they are unfairly threatened or harmed by the anti-competitive behaviour of others, that they have someone on their side: that someone is us. It is the essential and growing role of the European Union and of the European Commission in this global age. It does not make our task easier, but it makes it all the more necessary and important and it is a responsibility that, for my own part, I intend to see discharged in a fair, objective and dispassionate way."@lv¹³ "Mr President, by my reckoning 85% of those who have spoken have welcomed this review and therefore I feel gratified in having taken the initiative in proposing it to the Commission. I hope that this fact and the very intelligent and, in the main, very balanced contributions that have been made to this debate will be registered in the Council and by the Presidency. I do not know whether they are represented tonight. It appears not. But, nonetheless, I am sure that this fact will communicate itself. Now, having welcomed the review, people do differ as to whether they want to use it to water down the existing TDI or not. I am going to disappoint both those categories, both the water-downers and the anti-water-downers, by saying that the aim of the review is neither to strengthen nor to weaken our existing trade defence instruments. Instead, the purpose is to make sure that we have rules that are clear, consistent and capable of commanding consensus across the Union. I am not fully satisfied that we are striking the right balance at the moment. Hence the controversy, hence the breakdown in consensus, hence the breakdown in solidarity amongst and between Member States that we have observed in recent cases. It is my responsibility to do what is necessary, if anything can be done, to repair that solidarity and make sure that we have consensus rebuilt. Of course, we are faced with constant dilemmas in exercising and applying these rules. One person’s legitimate protection is another person’s protectionism and that is where judgement needs to be applied on the basis of the objective analysis undertaken by the Commission. But I have heard the call of many in this House to ensure that our anti-dumping system is clear, transparent and objective. I have heard the concerns expressed about the length and lack of efficiency of the process and I have heard those who have said that they want environmental concerns better reflected. I am not sure whether I will ever be able to fashion a set of instruments that will enable us to use trade defence to tackle global warming or bring climate security to the world. Of course, if this is a challenge that Members of this Parliament want to set us, then we will rise to it, but I am not sure that we will be successful, just as I am not entirely sure that we will be able to use trade defence instruments to address exchange rate policy either. I am very grateful to those who have spoken and raised very important points. My own view, just to go back to the opening speaker in this debate, is that if you want to make and sustain the case for economic openness in Europe, which I do, then the people of Europe have to feel confident that, when they are unfairly threatened or harmed by the anti-competitive behaviour of others, that they have someone on their side: that someone is us. It is the essential and growing role of the European Union and of the European Commission in this global age. It does not make our task easier, but it makes it all the more necessary and important and it is a responsibility that, for my own part, I intend to see discharged in a fair, objective and dispassionate way."@mt¹⁵ "Mijnheer de Voorzitter, als ik goed heb gerekend, is 85 procent van de sprekers voorstander van deze herziening en daarom doet het mij deugd dat ik die herziening aan de Commissie heb voorgesteld. Ik hoop dat dit voorstel, samen met de zeer zinnige en in het algemeen zeer evenwichtige bijdragen aan dit debat ook door de Raad en het voorzitterschap zullen worden opgemerkt. Ik weet niet of zij hier vanavond vertegenwoordigd zijn. Het lijkt er niet op. Enfin, ik ben ervan overtuigd dat deze boodschap ook tot hen zal doordringen. Los van de positieve houding ten opzichte van die herziening bestaan er wel verschillen over de vraag of die herziening al dan niet gebruikt moet worden om de bestaande handelsbeschermingsinstrumenten af te zwakken. Ik moet zowel de voor- als tegenstanders van een verzwakking teleurstellen aangezien deze herziening noch het verzwakken noch het versterken van de huidige instrumenten beoogt. Het doel is namelijk om duidelijke en consequente regels op te stellen waarover in de hele Unie consensus bestaat. Ik ben er nog niet helemaal van overtuigd dat wij op dit moment het juiste evenwicht hebben gevonden. Dat is ook de reden voor de controverse en voor het gebrek aan consensus en solidariteit in en tussen de lidstaten dat wij onlangs in een aantal gevallen hebben kunnen constateren. Het is mijn verantwoordelijkheid om de noodzakelijke maatregelen te nemen om die solidariteit waar mogelijk te herstellen en te zorgen dat wij allemaal weer op één lijn komen te zitten. Uiteraard worden wij met permanente dilemma’s geconfronteerd bij het handhaven en toepassen van de regels. De legitieme bescherming van de ene persoon wordt door een andere persoon als protectionisme aangemerkt. Daarom dient de oordeelsvorming plaats te vinden op basis van objectieve analyses door de Commissie. Ik heb echter ook de oproep van veel afgevaardigden in dit Parlement gehoord voor een antidumpingsysteem dat duidelijk, transparant en objectief is. Ook heb ik de kritiek gehoord over de duur en het gebrek aan efficiëntie van het proces. Tot slot heb ik ook degenen gehoord die van mening zijn dat er meer aandacht aan milieuaspecten gegeven moet worden. Ik twijfel of ik ooit een instrumentenpakket zal kunnen ontwikkelen dat ons in staat stelt om onze handelsbescherming te gebruiken voor het aanpakken van de opwarming van de aarde of voor het tegengaan van de mondiale klimaatverandering. Als de afgevaardigden van dit Parlement graag willen dat wij die uitdaging aangaan, zullen wij dat natuurlijk doen, maar ik ben er niet zeker van of wij in die opdracht zullen slagen. Ik ben er ook niet helemaal zeker van dat wij erin zullen slagen om de handelsbeschermingsinstrumenten te gebruiken in dienst van het wisselkoersbeleid. Ik ben de sprekers die belangrijke punten aan de orde hebben gesteld, zeer dankbaar. Zelf ben ik van mening – en nu kom ik weer terug bij de eerste spreker van dit debat – dat als wij daadwerkelijk willen streven naar een duurzame economische openheid in Europa (en ik ben daar zelf voorstander van) er één belangrijke voorwaarde is: wij moeten er dan namelijk voor zorgen dat de Europese burgers erop kunnen vertrouwen dat iemand voor hun belangen opkomt als er sprake is van oneerlijke bedreigingen of van negatieve gevolgen door mededingingsverstorend gedrag van anderen. En die iemand, dat zijn wij. Dat is de fundamentele en steeds groter wordende rol van de Europese Unie en de Europese Commissie in dit mondiale tijdperk. Dat maakt onze taak er niet gemakkelijker op, maar het is wel een noodzakelijke en belangrijke taak. Persoonlijk wil ik deze verantwoordelijkheid graag op een eerlijke, objectieve en onpartijdige wijze invullen."@nl³ "Mr President, by my reckoning 85% of those who have spoken have welcomed this review and therefore I feel gratified in having taken the initiative in proposing it to the Commission. I hope that this fact and the very intelligent and, in the main, very balanced contributions that have been made to this debate will be registered in the Council and by the Presidency. I do not know whether they are represented tonight. It appears not. But, nonetheless, I am sure that this fact will communicate itself. Now, having welcomed the review, people do differ as to whether they want to use it to water down the existing TDI or not. I am going to disappoint both those categories, both the water-downers and the anti-water-downers, by saying that the aim of the review is neither to strengthen nor to weaken our existing trade defence instruments. Instead, the purpose is to make sure that we have rules that are clear, consistent and capable of commanding consensus across the Union. I am not fully satisfied that we are striking the right balance at the moment. Hence the controversy, hence the breakdown in consensus, hence the breakdown in solidarity amongst and between Member States that we have observed in recent cases. It is my responsibility to do what is necessary, if anything can be done, to repair that solidarity and make sure that we have consensus rebuilt. Of course, we are faced with constant dilemmas in exercising and applying these rules. One person’s legitimate protection is another person’s protectionism and that is where judgement needs to be applied on the basis of the objective analysis undertaken by the Commission. But I have heard the call of many in this House to ensure that our anti-dumping system is clear, transparent and objective. I have heard the concerns expressed about the length and lack of efficiency of the process and I have heard those who have said that they want environmental concerns better reflected. I am not sure whether I will ever be able to fashion a set of instruments that will enable us to use trade defence to tackle global warming or bring climate security to the world. Of course, if this is a challenge that Members of this Parliament want to set us, then we will rise to it, but I am not sure that we will be successful, just as I am not entirely sure that we will be able to use trade defence instruments to address exchange rate policy either. I am very grateful to those who have spoken and raised very important points. My own view, just to go back to the opening speaker in this debate, is that if you want to make and sustain the case for economic openness in Europe, which I do, then the people of Europe have to feel confident that, when they are unfairly threatened or harmed by the anti-competitive behaviour of others, that they have someone on their side: that someone is us. It is the essential and growing role of the European Union and of the European Commission in this global age. It does not make our task easier, but it makes it all the more necessary and important and it is a responsibility that, for my own part, I intend to see discharged in a fair, objective and dispassionate way."@pl¹⁶ "Senhor Presidente, pelos meus cálculos, 85% dos que intervieram manifestaram-se favoráveis a esta revisão e, por conseguinte, sinto-me gratificado por ter tomado a iniciativa de a propor à Comissão. Espero que este facto e os contributos muito inteligentes e, no essencial, muito equilibrados dados neste debate sejam registados pelo Conselho e pela Presidência. Não sei se estão aqui representados esta noite. Parece que não. Mas, seja como for, estou certo de que este facto será suficientemente eloquente para que chegue ao seu conhecimento. Porém, ao acolher bem esta revisão, as opiniões divergem quanto ao desejo de diluir, ou não, os IDC existentes. Desiludirei ambas as facções de pessoas. Quer as que pretendem uma diluição, quer as que defendem o contrário, afirmando que o objectivo desta revisão não é reforçar, nem enfraquecer, os actuais instrumentos de defesa comercial. Ao invés, o que está em causa é garantir que disponhamos de regras claras, consistentes e capazes de reunir consenso em toda a União. Não estou absolutamente convicto de que estejamos, de momento, a conseguir um equilíbrio correcto. Daí, a controvérsia, daí a quebra de consenso, daí a quebra de solidariedade nos Estados-Membros e entre eles, que observámos nos casos mais recentes. Cabe-me a responsabilidade de fazer o necessário, se é que pode fazer-se mais alguma coisa, para reconstituir essa solidariedade e garantir que reconstruamos o consenso. Evidentemente, estamos diante de dilemas constantes na execução e aplicação destas regras. A protecção legítima de uns é o proteccionismo de outros, e é nessas circunstâncias que se torna necessário um juízo assente numa análise objectiva levada a cabo pela Comissão. Mas ouvi os apelos de muitos, nesta Assembleia, no sentido de assegurar que o nosso sistema anti seja claro, transparente e objectivo. Ouvi as preocupações expressas quanto à morosidade e falta de eficácia do processo e ouvi os que defendem que as considerações ambientais sejam mais bem acolhidas. Não estou certo de que alguma vez consiga produzir um conjunto de instrumentos que possam permitir-nos usar a defesa comercial para enfrentar as alterações climáticas, ou para trazer a segurança climática ao mundo. Claro, se este é um desafio que os deputados deste Parlamento querem lançar-nos, então tentaremos fazer-lhe jus, mas não estou certo de que seremos bem sucedidos, assim como também não estou absolutamente convencido de que conseguiremos utilizar os instrumentos de defesa comercial para fazer face à política cambial. Estou extremamente grato aos que intervieram e levantaram numerosas questões importantes. No meu entender, e regressando ao que afirmou o primeiro orador neste debate, se quisermos advogar e defender a abertura económica na Europa, que é o meu caso, então as pessoas, na Europa, terão de se sentir confiantes de que, quando são tratadas de forma desleal ou prejudicadas pelo comportamento anti-concorrencial de terceiros, haverá alguém do seu lado: que somos nós. Esse é o papel essencial e crescente da União Europeia e da Comissão Europeia nesta era global. Não torna a nossa tarefa mais fácil, mas torna-a ainda mais necessária e importante, e é uma responsabilidade que, pela parte que me toca, tenciono ver cumprida de forma justa, objectiva e desapaixonada."@pt¹⁷ "Mr President, by my reckoning 85% of those who have spoken have welcomed this review and therefore I feel gratified in having taken the initiative in proposing it to the Commission. I hope that this fact and the very intelligent and, in the main, very balanced contributions that have been made to this debate will be registered in the Council and by the Presidency. I do not know whether they are represented tonight. It appears not. But, nonetheless, I am sure that this fact will communicate itself. Now, having welcomed the review, people do differ as to whether they want to use it to water down the existing TDI or not. I am going to disappoint both those categories, both the water-downers and the anti-water-downers, by saying that the aim of the review is neither to strengthen nor to weaken our existing trade defence instruments. Instead, the purpose is to make sure that we have rules that are clear, consistent and capable of commanding consensus across the Union. I am not fully satisfied that we are striking the right balance at the moment. Hence the controversy, hence the breakdown in consensus, hence the breakdown in solidarity amongst and between Member States that we have observed in recent cases. It is my responsibility to do what is necessary, if anything can be done, to repair that solidarity and make sure that we have consensus rebuilt. Of course, we are faced with constant dilemmas in exercising and applying these rules. One person’s legitimate protection is another person’s protectionism and that is where judgement needs to be applied on the basis of the objective analysis undertaken by the Commission. But I have heard the call of many in this House to ensure that our anti-dumping system is clear, transparent and objective. I have heard the concerns expressed about the length and lack of efficiency of the process and I have heard those who have said that they want environmental concerns better reflected. I am not sure whether I will ever be able to fashion a set of instruments that will enable us to use trade defence to tackle global warming or bring climate security to the world. Of course, if this is a challenge that Members of this Parliament want to set us, then we will rise to it, but I am not sure that we will be successful, just as I am not entirely sure that we will be able to use trade defence instruments to address exchange rate policy either. I am very grateful to those who have spoken and raised very important points. My own view, just to go back to the opening speaker in this debate, is that if you want to make and sustain the case for economic openness in Europe, which I do, then the people of Europe have to feel confident that, when they are unfairly threatened or harmed by the anti-competitive behaviour of others, that they have someone on their side: that someone is us. It is the essential and growing role of the European Union and of the European Commission in this global age. It does not make our task easier, but it makes it all the more necessary and important and it is a responsibility that, for my own part, I intend to see discharged in a fair, objective and dispassionate way."@ro¹⁸ "Mr President, by my reckoning 85% of those who have spoken have welcomed this review and therefore I feel gratified in having taken the initiative in proposing it to the Commission. I hope that this fact and the very intelligent and, in the main, very balanced contributions that have been made to this debate will be registered in the Council and by the Presidency. I do not know whether they are represented tonight. It appears not. But, nonetheless, I am sure that this fact will communicate itself. Now, having welcomed the review, people do differ as to whether they want to use it to water down the existing TDI or not. I am going to disappoint both those categories, both the water-downers and the anti-water-downers, by saying that the aim of the review is neither to strengthen nor to weaken our existing trade defence instruments. Instead, the purpose is to make sure that we have rules that are clear, consistent and capable of commanding consensus across the Union. I am not fully satisfied that we are striking the right balance at the moment. Hence the controversy, hence the breakdown in consensus, hence the breakdown in solidarity amongst and between Member States that we have observed in recent cases. It is my responsibility to do what is necessary, if anything can be done, to repair that solidarity and make sure that we have consensus rebuilt. Of course, we are faced with constant dilemmas in exercising and applying these rules. One person’s legitimate protection is another person’s protectionism and that is where judgement needs to be applied on the basis of the objective analysis undertaken by the Commission. But I have heard the call of many in this House to ensure that our anti-dumping system is clear, transparent and objective. I have heard the concerns expressed about the length and lack of efficiency of the process and I have heard those who have said that they want environmental concerns better reflected. I am not sure whether I will ever be able to fashion a set of instruments that will enable us to use trade defence to tackle global warming or bring climate security to the world. Of course, if this is a challenge that Members of this Parliament want to set us, then we will rise to it, but I am not sure that we will be successful, just as I am not entirely sure that we will be able to use trade defence instruments to address exchange rate policy either. I am very grateful to those who have spoken and raised very important points. My own view, just to go back to the opening speaker in this debate, is that if you want to make and sustain the case for economic openness in Europe, which I do, then the people of Europe have to feel confident that, when they are unfairly threatened or harmed by the anti-competitive behaviour of others, that they have someone on their side: that someone is us. It is the essential and growing role of the European Union and of the European Commission in this global age. It does not make our task easier, but it makes it all the more necessary and important and it is a responsibility that, for my own part, I intend to see discharged in a fair, objective and dispassionate way."@sk¹⁹ "Mr President, by my reckoning 85% of those who have spoken have welcomed this review and therefore I feel gratified in having taken the initiative in proposing it to the Commission. I hope that this fact and the very intelligent and, in the main, very balanced contributions that have been made to this debate will be registered in the Council and by the Presidency. I do not know whether they are represented tonight. It appears not. But, nonetheless, I am sure that this fact will communicate itself. Now, having welcomed the review, people do differ as to whether they want to use it to water down the existing TDI or not. I am going to disappoint both those categories, both the water-downers and the anti-water-downers, by saying that the aim of the review is neither to strengthen nor to weaken our existing trade defence instruments. Instead, the purpose is to make sure that we have rules that are clear, consistent and capable of commanding consensus across the Union. I am not fully satisfied that we are striking the right balance at the moment. Hence the controversy, hence the breakdown in consensus, hence the breakdown in solidarity amongst and between Member States that we have observed in recent cases. It is my responsibility to do what is necessary, if anything can be done, to repair that solidarity and make sure that we have consensus rebuilt. Of course, we are faced with constant dilemmas in exercising and applying these rules. One person’s legitimate protection is another person’s protectionism and that is where judgement needs to be applied on the basis of the objective analysis undertaken by the Commission. But I have heard the call of many in this House to ensure that our anti-dumping system is clear, transparent and objective. I have heard the concerns expressed about the length and lack of efficiency of the process and I have heard those who have said that they want environmental concerns better reflected. I am not sure whether I will ever be able to fashion a set of instruments that will enable us to use trade defence to tackle global warming or bring climate security to the world. Of course, if this is a challenge that Members of this Parliament want to set us, then we will rise to it, but I am not sure that we will be successful, just as I am not entirely sure that we will be able to use trade defence instruments to address exchange rate policy either. I am very grateful to those who have spoken and raised very important points. My own view, just to go back to the opening speaker in this debate, is that if you want to make and sustain the case for economic openness in Europe, which I do, then the people of Europe have to feel confident that, when they are unfairly threatened or harmed by the anti-competitive behaviour of others, that they have someone on their side: that someone is us. It is the essential and growing role of the European Union and of the European Commission in this global age. It does not make our task easier, but it makes it all the more necessary and important and it is a responsibility that, for my own part, I intend to see discharged in a fair, objective and dispassionate way."@sl²⁰ "Herr talman! Enligt min uppfattning har ungefär 85 procent av dem som har talat välkomnat den här översynen, och därför känner jag mig tillfreds med att ha tagit initiativet till att föreslå den för kommissionen. Jag hoppas att detta och de mycket intelligenta och i stort sett välavvägda inlägg som har gjorts i debatten kommer att uppfattas av rådet och av ordförandeskapet. Jag vet inte om de är representerade här i kväll. Det verkar inte så. Men jag är i alla fall säker på att dessa fakta kommer att nå fram av egen kraft. Efter att ha välkomnat översynen har folk nu skilda åsikter om huruvida de vill använda den för att försvaga de nuvarande handelsskyddsåtgärderna eller inte. Jag tänker göra båda sidorna besvikna, både de som vill ha ett urvattnat handelsskydd och de som inte vill det, genom att säga att målet med översynen varken är att stärka eller försvaga våra nuvarande handelsskyddsåtgärder. Istället är syftet att se till att vi har regler som är tydliga och konsekventa och som alla i EU kan enas om. Jag är inte säker på att vi har den rätta balansen för tillfället. Därav denna polemik, denna brist på samförstånd och denna brist på solidaritet bland och mellan medlemsstaterna som vi har bevittnat på senare tid. Det är mitt ansvar att göra vad som krävs, om något kan göras, för att återställa solidariteten och se till att vi återskapar samförståndet. Självklart står vi inför ständiga dilemman med att utöva och tillämpa de här reglerna. En persons berättigade skydd är en annan persons protektionism, och det är där omdömet måste användas utifrån den objektiva analys som kommissionen har genomfört. Men jag har hört kraven från många här i parlamentet om att vi måste se till att vårt antidumpningssystem är tydligt, öppet och objektivt. Jag har hört oron uttryckas om längden och bristen på effektivitet i processen, och jag har hört de som har sagt att de vill att miljöaspekterna ska synas bättre. Jag är inte säker på om jag någonsin kommer att kunna skapa en uppsättning åtgärder som låter oss använda handelsskyddet för att hantera klimatförändringen eller tillgodose klimatskyddet till världen. Om detta är en utmaning som ledamöterna i parlamentet vill ge oss ska vi självklart ta oss an den, men jag är inte säker på att vi kommer att lyckas, precis som jag inte är helt säker på att vi kommer att kunna använda handelsskyddsåtgärder för att ta itu med valutapolitiken heller. Jag är mycket tacksam till dem som har talat och tagit upp verkligt väsentliga frågor. Min egen åsikt, för att gå tillbaka till öppningsanförandet i den här debatten, är att om ni vill skapa och stödja ekonomisk öppenhet i EU, vilket jag vill, då måste medborgarna i EU känna sig säkra på att de har någon på sin sida när de behandlas orättvist eller skadas av andras konkurrensbegränsande beteenden, och denna någon är vi. Det är den viktigaste och växande rollen för EU och Europeiska kommissionen i vår globala tid. Det gör inte uppgiften enklare, men det gör den desto mer nödvändig och viktig, och det är en uppgift som jag för egen del tänker genomföra på ett rättvist, objektivt och opartiskt sätt."@sv²²
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Member of the Commission"^{18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,11,13,4} "Peter Mandelson,"^{18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,13,4} "antidumping"¹² "dumping"¹⁷