Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-01-Speech-4-043"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010301.2.4-043"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Let me first start by congratulating the rapporteurs for their excellent and very helpful reports.
Then there is the question of democracy, the rule of law, respect of human rights and good governance. These are all basis tenants of our negotiating position and they are the cornerstone of the agreement that we want to reach. These issues have already been discussed during the third round in Brasilia and Santiago and we have reached consensus with Mercosur and Chile on them. I am personally committed to ensuring that these essential elements underpin our future association agreements with Mercosur and Chile.
Then labour rights. These are also an integral part of the negotiations. They are currently being discussed in view of the fourth round in March. We need to ensure that labour rights and greater prosperity advance hand-in-hand. Greater prosperity should help lead to a deepening of democracy and that should mean greater respect for basic rights, including of course labour rights. So we support an approach in the association agreement which assures labour rights through cooperation and promotion of the relevant ILO Conventions.
I come to greater political cooperation including security. This was already established during the third round in Brasilia and Santiago. We will work together for the promotion of peace and international security on the basis, of course, of our own internal rules and procedures.
Civil society was mentioned in the reports and by a number of speakers. Transparency and accountability are essential. Civil society should be part of the agreement. We have already agreed on proposals during the third round to include civil society in the institutional framework of the agreement. In addition, the Commission organised a successful conference with civil society last October to promote discussions on the negotiations. We have also created a website in August of last year which provides a full breakdown on the negotiations for the general public. So as the House can see we are making a real effort to enhance the transparency of the process.
Several Members and the reports themselves refer to the possibility of eliminating the link to the proposed new WTO round. I certainly do not rule out this possibility but this will depend first of all on whether we have a new WTO round at all. We obviously hope that happens, and the sooner the better, but we have not yet got that proposal off the ground. It depends as well on the progress we achieve in future negotiating rounds with Mercosur and Chile. We might consider this option if sufficient and substantial progress is made. It is suggested that we should eliminate the two-phased negotiating approach. The House will know as well as I do that this approach was the result of a compromise solution between Ministers during the General Affairs Council of June 1999 in Luxembourg. This compromise formula broke the deadlock in Council and opened the door to the approval of the negotiating directives.
I very much appreciate Parliament’s support on this important issue but it is presently more a matter of principle than practice. I am afraid we are now too far into the process to turn back. We only have four months more to go and only one negotiating round until July when the second negotiating phase is meant to start. So I think we should get on with the job and prepare meaningful global negotiations from July onwards.
Let me finish by underlining once again that the Commission is absolutely committed to successful negotiations with Mercosur and Chile. We are determined to get on with the job and make as much progress as possible. Negotiations are in full swing. Preparations for the next round are on track. With or without changes in the mandate, the Commission is working to make these negotiations a success as quickly as possible. I hope I can count on Parliament’s support to that end.
Lastly, can I refer to two questions which I received during the debate. First of all, Mrs Díez González asked me a question. I am afraid I left the Chamber for about 60 seconds of her speech. I will not go into the details as to why, but if I tell the House that I am present in Parliament the whole of the morning she will perhaps appreciate why I needed 60 seconds outside the chamber, but I can respond very positively to her remark. She asked whether there would be a joint interparliamentary committee. The Commission strongly believes that there should be. We can respond very favourably to the honourable lady’s request and we will be discussing exactly the mechanism that we can use shortly with Mercosur and Chile. So we can give a very positive response to that important proposal.
Secondly, the honourable gentleman Mr Knörr Borràs, asked me about the OECD Code. We cannot oblige countries that are not members of the OECD to follow the OECD Code. I understand the importance of the point he raised but we cannot make it obligatory for non-OECD members to follow the OECD Code. I repeat I hope that we can count on Parliament’s support in the weeks and months ahead, and I am sure that the close attention being shown in this debate underlines the fact that we will able to do so.
We are clearly entering a crucial moment in the negotiations for association agreements with Chile and Mercosur. The negotiations are well on track. We have had three negotiating rounds, part of the last of which I attended myself. It was a considerable success. Preparations for the fourth round of negotiations to be held in the second fortnight of March are in full swing. It is fair to say that after one and a half years of negotiations, we are approaching the most intensive phase. Political dialogue, cooperation and trade issues figure very high on the agenda of the next session. Negotiating texts have been exchanged. Work has even started on the preparation of the tariff and services negotiations, including agriculture, which are going to begin in July.
This has all been possible thanks to our serious commitment to these negotiations. No-one doubts that the Commission wishes to do all we can to strengthen ties with Mercosur and Chile.
During the course of this year I want to accelerate these negotiations. Much progress has already been made in the political and cooperation fields but major progress is still needed on the trade side. I hope we will see a leap forward on non-tariff barriers and business facilitation in March. In July, we expect progress with negotiating offers on both tariffs and services.
As my honourable friend pointed out earlier, the second European Union – Latin-America Summit will take place in Madrid in Spring next year. It is still too early to speculate on what concrete progress we should expect by then but it is always clear, as the honourable gentleman said earlier, that by the time of the summit, negotiations must have established a critical mass. This critical mass should be sufficient in some areas to finish discussions. It should also be possible in other areas to conclude negotiations as soon after that as reasonably possible.
Our objective is to attain a high and ambitious level of political and commercial interaction with Mercosur and Chile. As Parliament knows, no sector is excluded from the negotiations. Our main guidelines are achieving a strategic political partnership, strengthened cooperation, and a WTO-plus deal on the trade side.
It is no secret that while Chile fully shares this comprehensive approach, Mercosur has a rather more limited objective, aiming primarily for greater market access in agriculture. We should continue to insist on a comprehensive global and balanced agreement which aims at a deeper political and cooperation relationship as well as wide and far-reaching trade liberalisation.
The two reports that we are discussing are both comprehensive and extremely useful. They make a number of sound recommendations – most of these are based on the possibility of modifying the current negotiating mandate provided by the Council. That may be desirable at some point over the coming year but, at that this point in time, we are naturally focused on achieving successful rounds of negotiations in March and July rather than on stopping the discussions and going back to the drawing board with the Council. We had a full internal debate on this two or three years ago. At present, the Commission is keen to get down to work and do the job it was instructed to do.
Let me just make a few concrete comments as regards the specific recommendations. First the matter of the legal base. The final agreement will be an association agreement not a mere trade deal. Our future strategic partnership goes well beyond trade. However our legal advisers tell me that the exact articles for the legal base could only be determined at the end of the negotiations. I agree with this opinion. For the time being we only have the outline of agreement. We need to wait for the final result, as we have done in other similar negotiations, before we look at our own legal base."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples