Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-13-Speech-1-066"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991213.3.1-066"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I think Members should realise what an excellent negotiator we had in Pascal Lamy. Of those taking part in the discussions, he was far and away the most skilful and appeared to show the most stamina. That is important to recognise.
Animal welfare was perceived by poor countries as a rich person's interest which, to some of them, was almost obscene where we are confronted with starving people. That is something again we will have to work on and similarly with core labour standards. It is important that the WTO is restored in a reformed way. The alternative is the United States making bilateral agreements from a position of strength with the poorer countries of the world. That is not what we want. We, in the Parliament, must follow this issue along with Mr Lamy and other Commissioners until we get something that is appropriate to the age which we are moving into.
The discussions in Seattle were perhaps more complex than could have been anticipated: they were certainly over-ambitious, and that should have been anticipated. There was a quite absurd concentration of time limits, particularly since some of the time was lost because of extraneous events. There was a hysterical press interest, not in what was happening in the discussions, but in what was happening on the streets, which was largely due to complete clumsiness by the local police.
There was a complexity because of the sheer number of participants, not only from the countries concerned, but from NGOs, from lobbyists, from national government delegations and from others. The issues themselves were complex. This was not a game of poker, it was a complex game of chess with completely justifiable but contradictory claims taking the stage.
The European Union was, in fact, very well placed. Over the years of our existence we have managed to put in place environmental and social rules alongside trade rules. It can be done in international discussions. It is not easy but it is essential and we are well placed because we have, to a limited extent, managed that.
We were well placed because of our links with the ACP countries, although there was an issue over their waiver which clouded the discussions, and because we have always worked well with NGOs.
We were well placed in having a large parliamentary delegation. I am pleased that our socialist amendment calling for a parliamentary assembly was taken up world-wide.
The issue of agriculture: The United States and other countries refused to understand, even though it is a very simple notion, the multifunctional reasons for our common agricultural policy. They refuse to admit that they subsidise their agriculture in a much less transparent way than we do.
As far as environmental issues were concerned, these are not and should not be simply concerns of rich countries, but they were portrayed as such and there is a great deal of work to do in bringing those issues to a State where they are not thought of as protectionism.
Mr Lamy says that the biotech working group was fact-finding, but the widespread perception was that it would interfere with the setting-up of the bio-safety protocol and colleagues will say more about that."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples