Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-16-Speech-4-012"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000316.1.4-012"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, this is the third debate on the EU-Mexico agreement and, given that it is the most comprehensive agreement which the European Union has ever concluded with a third country, the principles that mark the sort of cooperation which will be viable in the future should not be thrown to the wind. Both we and the people of Mexico set great store by this agreement. They see it as a chance to correct their one-way dependence on NAFTA. They believe that, in the EU, they have found a partner which stands for democracy, human rights and social and ecological development. Today we have analysed the contract and found that the agreement with the EU not only creates the same sort of relationship as with NAFTA, but that, in parts, it is even worse.
Like the rightly failed MAI, freedom of investment, reproduced bilaterally, does nothing to foster a democratically-controlled economy geared to local development. Placing no limit on opening public procurement merely allows large suppliers to swallow up small suppliers all over the world. Provisions such as domestic treatment and bans on conditions cut companies which, for example, prefer to employ women or engage in environmentally sound production, out of the running. The EU has kept derogations open for itself here. Mexico has none! Here is another shortcoming in comparison with NAFTA: the latter has an agreement on employees’ rights with a sanction mechanism, while the EU agreement has not even heard of the Social Pact of the United Nations.
However, the opposite applies to trade disputes, for which a dispute settlement mechanism is provided together with the possibility of sanctions. We know from the WTO that environmental laws are regularly sidelined as the result of such disputes. “A free trade agreement at the cost of the Mexicans”. It was under this banner that the Mexican civil society called a few days ago for the Senate to improve the agreement and not to rush into signing it. Some points even contradict the Mexican constitution. “We are not ‘globalphobes’ they write at the end, “but we want globalisation which benefits mankind and a fair world order without social exclusion”.
We here in the European Parliament do not oppose an agreement with Mexico. On the contrary! We are unable, however, to vote in favour of this agreement for the reasons stated and must continue to fight for better agreements in the future. One last word: we need a critical voice here in Parliament which continues to support the rightful concerns and demands of Mexican society."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples