Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-10-14-Speech-4-029"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041014.3.4-029"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I should like to echo the words of thanks expressed by my fellow Members to Commissioner Lamy for the cooperation and to wish him well in his future career. I should also like to thank him for his clarifications today; I agree with him that the Generalised System of Preferences is, in principle, a sound instrument for giving development opportunities via trade, but that the system is clearly in need of revision.
I have two questions for the Commissioner. I share his view that phasing out the trade barriers does, in fact, partly erode the Generalised System of Preferences and that it is thus more than necessary for us to concentrate on the countries that need this the most. I therefore share Mrs Lucas’ concern about the future of some developing countries when the textile quota lapses. I would very much appreciate it, Commissioner, if you could explain once more how this system of graduation can be deployed to help those least developed countries. You mentioned China as a very obvious example, but what about the position of Pakistan and India, for example?
Secondly, the GSP+ system does indeed make it possible to use trade as a lever for human rights, labour rights, the environment and good governance. I welcome the fact that the existing regulations are being combined, for what is the use of awarding GSP+ to Pakistan on account of its drugs policy if child labour is still rampant? Commissioner, you explained that it is not only about ratification, but also about application, but quite honestly, it was not entirely clear to me which treaties you have in mind. You gave a whole list of items and tried to explain how those should be monitored, but I fear that the list you have given will make the GSP+ system completely inoperable. You also failed to mention in what way sanctions will be tied in with non-compliance with those fundamental treaties and how this system can be implemented effectively. All too often, GSP+ or the linking to working standards or treaties become ineffective instruments, because non-compliance is simply not followed up by sanctions. If you could explain this once again, I would be very grateful."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples