Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-01-14-Speech-2-078"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-01-14"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Vote2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030114.3.2-078"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-01-14-Speech-2-0792
lpv:speaker	lp:Paul Rübig2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Österreichische Volkspartei (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Delegation for relations with Switzerland, Iceland and Norway (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; BUDG (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	". In principle, I regard the Commission's proposal for a regulation as something to be welcomed. Most of Parliament's amendments complement it well, but I regard the following points as problematic in view of current Community rules and practices: a new and higher standard through substituting ‘significant material injury’ for ‘material injury’ in the area of goods, resulting in uncertainty due to the new definition, as well as the potential weakening of our negotiating position on this point at the Doha follow-up negotiations, and discrimination in favour of the service sector to the detriment of the manufacturing sector (Amendments Nos 9, 25, 26, 38); the lack of any scope for legal action afforded to ‘allied enterprises’, these being defined by the existence of an alliance agreement, which, in practice, because of the worldwide network of alliances, results in marked reduction in the scope for legal action (Amendment No 39); the need for Amendment No 60 to be clarified to ascertain whether it is to be read as meaning that a decision by the Commission shall be regarded as confirmed if no agreement on it can be reached in Council. In any case, Amendment No 62 (qualified majority in the Council) sets a higher standard for the imposition of measures in the area of services than in that of goods. When determining where the Community interest lies, there is a departure from the original assumption that the imposition of measures is in principle in the Community interest, unless the opposite is established to be the case, in the sense that measures are imposed only when their application is in the Community interest. I hope that these points can be examined closely during the remainder of the proceedings."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph