Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-10-14-Speech-4-020"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041014.3.4-020"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, it is apparent from the separate motions for a resolution submitted by the individual groups in response to one Commission communication that a very large number of their demands were identical. What that means is that there exists in this House a certain consensus, particularly as regards graduation, the preferences that are to be changed, and the form that additional concessions are to take in the future.
What amazed me about the debate was that, if one wants to change systems of preference – which we do – there has to be an analysis first. Trade is not an end in itself; it serves to promote countries’ economic and social development, and so it follows that an analysis has to be produced, stating what existing trade under the existing conditions under the preference systems has achieved. Did it make countries poorer or less poor? Did it or did it not promote industrialisation? Did it help to improve health service provision in underdeveloped countries, or did it not? Have their young people become better trained and educated or less so?
What that means, then, is that we need in the first place objective criteria in order to evaluate what the existing systems have achieved in the way of development. I regret that I have seen no analysis of this whatever. Today, Commissioner Lamy said that such an analysis exists. There must be in-depth debate of these components in this House before the new Regulation is hammered out.
There are two more comments I would like to make. Firstly, when dealing with the systems of preferences, we will, in future too, have to work on the assumption that certain countries must be evaluated in different ways. It may be that markets in the developing countries will have to be protected if they are to be able to develop at all. There is a place for that. I cannot ‘open up’ every market if I want to promote countries’ development, particularly as regards food safety, agriculture and so on. Secondly, this is not just about trade, but also about the fact that, if things are produced in countries in which we want to promote social measures, the jobs involved must be proper and dignified ones. I believe that this should also feature in the analysis."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples