Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-12-Speech-1-104"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010312.7.1-104"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to make three points which could be of interest in the context of Konrad Schwaiger's report. Firstly, as you will see from the additional amendments which have now been proposed for this week, there is a great deal of interest in this issue within the House, and this interest generally tends to focus on a small number of themes. So my first question is this: are the TRIPs negotiations really all that promising? Should they continue as before, or is it time for a review? Should more be done in the field of agriculture? How can effective consumer protection be safeguarded? There are many other questions as well.
I would also like to ask you about the Built-In Agenda, which is now being negotiated and which is due for review in March. How great, in reality, are the differences between the parties negotiating on the Built-In Agenda? What impact is the agricultural crisis in Europe having on these negotiations, and how far have the negotiations progressed overall? Or is it more a question of business as usual? Are we simply carrying on as if nothing has happened?
The second point which I should like to raise is this, you have produced a document which indicates that you would like to see greater flexibility in the forthcoming WTO negotiations. Flexibility is a very broad term. I greatly welcomed this document but I am sure that it will spark off many political discussions in this House as well. You can interpret it in any number of ways, so let me put a few questions to you. Does this document signal a move away from the European Union's previous strategy, which, until now, has been based on the principle that we have always had, and wanted to have, a comprehensive role, which has included competition and investment, for example, but also all the ‘soft’ issues such as social standards, labour standards, and progress on environmental issues? Does this document signal a move away from that? Does it mean that you will need a new negotiating mandate or is the old one enough? What impact will this have on cooperation with the European Parliament?
In this context, I am most grateful to Mr Clegg for pointing out, yet again, that Article 133 is not acceptable to us in its current form. This is nothing new to you, and we are on the same side here, but the Council is listening, and perhaps the Council will be prepared, one day, to introduce an amendment with us.
The third point I would like to make is as follows: you met Mr Bob Soellig in the United States. I gather from the press that the mood of the meeting was very good, which is not surprising given that you are old friends, so in that sense I hope we can look forward to a rosier future in transatlantic relations. What are your specific expectations, however, of these good relations with regard to the fresh negotiations taking place within the WTO framework? Will there be positive signals, and will these positive signals mean that in June or July we will have a negotiating strategy which will take us to Qatar? And will this negotiating strategy include the developing countries as well?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples