Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-05-Speech-2-134"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991005.8.2-134"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the agreement reached with South Africa undoubtedly constitutes an overall step forward on a political level for the European Union. In this sense, we should feel particularly satisfied. But we do not think the same can be said on a trade level. This agreement is somewhat bewildering, leaves questions unanswered, and still has grey areas. Many organisations have been unhappy during these five long, tiring years, organisations which are usually involved in the processes of development in Third World countries. Moreover, different interpretations and opinions have been expressed by Parliament which wanted an agreement with conditions closer to those of the Lomé Convention, and the Commission itself wanted, how shall we say, an agreement with more conditions attached.
In our opinion, this is an inconsistent agreement. What we really needed were separate agreements where we could work with equal dignity and equal responsibilities. However, where this balance could not be achieved, we should have had calmer and certainly more analytical talks. The European Union, for example, has recognised safeguard clauses for agriculture in South Africa, and also for sectors competing with the European economy. 75% of South African agricultural products will benefit from facilitated access on to our markets and, in return, South Africa has taken – we think we can say this in good faith – rigid positions of outright refusal and which are, in certain aspects, incomprehensible. I am referring in particular to fish and wine. European countries have asked for access to South African waters to be regulated, despite the price concessions on South African exports of fish products, against the wishes of that country. South Africa uses European designations for its own products in our markets and in third countries’ markets in return for financial help for our sector. All this seems excessive and irrational. So we, the delegation of
believe we must vote against. We repeat, though, that in the future we are very willing to support the long and difficult process of growth and development in South Africa in a way that does not create injustice or unfairness."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples