Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-07-06-Speech-4-199"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060706.30.4-199"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, thank you for what has been a very constructive and helpful debate. I would like to thank those who have supported the Commission in its negotiating stance and its negotiating approach. It is never easy finally to judge precisely the best thing to do at the best time, but we do our best and I think it is true to say that amongst the key negotiating partners the EU has considerable support for the approach that we are taking. This is not as important as the support we have from our own side, from our own Member States and from the Members of this House.
I shall make one observation immediately. We have a number of interests in these negotiations – agricultural, non-agricultural, relating to services liberalisation and rules. Our job as negotiators is to get an outcome that is balanced across the range of those negotiating subjects. We will give in some places more than we will give in other places. There will be swings, there will be roundabouts, we will gain, and we will lose.
Nobody can make a final judgement about what Europe will be able to gain from these talks until the very end – not simply when the key modalities are put in place, as I hope they will be this summer, but when all the other negotiations have taken place on the individual country schedules and when all the negotiations about rules have also been put in place.
It is very important that those who are particularly concerned about agriculture in Europe understand and accept that we will not pay over the limits in agriculture for what we want elsewhere in the talks. We will do what is fair. We will do what is reasonable. We will do what is in our mandate as far as agriculture is concerned. That is clear to me. It should also be clear to our Member States.
Having said that, it is important to keep a sensible perspective in these negotiations. We must be careful not to devote such energy to protecting our defensive interests in agriculture in these negotiations that we fail to prioritise our offensive interests in non-agricultural market access and in services. There really must be a sense of proportion and balance as regards how we weigh the various economic and social interests that are at stake here.
As far as the United States is concerned, let me just say this in response to one speech: I do not feel that, should the talks fail, we as European negotiators are in a race with the United States to see who can shift the blame most effectively to the other. I look to the United States as a genuine partner, as a country and an economy that shares some of our interests but at the same time places a different emphasis from us in various areas of these negotiations. We will not reach a successful conclusion unless the EU and the US work together as a team – not at the expense of other negotiating partners, not instead of sensible negotiations and links and agreements that we will have with our negotiating partners in various areas of the negotiations.
However, if at the end of the day the EU and the US are at loggerheads and simply cannot agree the ground on which they will stand together to bring these talks to a successful conclusion, then there will be no successful conclusion to these talks. We will lose from that, the United States will lose from that, the global economy will lose from that and in particular developing countries will lose from that.
I should like to thank Members who have spoken, including those who have asked what my Plan B is if these talks fail. I am afraid I am not preparing for failure: I am going to continue to negotiate for success only, whether it be in relation to hormone beef, which is not part of these negotiations – we do not welcome US hormone-treated beef in the European Union for health reasons, not trade reasons – or in relation to GMOs, which again are not the subject of these talks and where our policy firstly has to be in line with the regulatory framework we adopted in the EU a few years ago and in line with WTO rules. It is this that governs our approach, rather than something I am negotiating in these talks.
I am glad that we – the Commission and Members of this Parliament – are able to cooperate in Geneva and elsewhere. I do not cooperate with this Parliament as an act of generosity on my part. There is nothing altruistic about this. The reason I cooperate is because I want the Members of the European Parliament there on these occasions. You give me valuable insights, you collect information and intelligence, you are able to tap different sources of opinion, which I do not always have easy access to, and you are also, on a good day, able to help us deliver a message to our negotiating partners. That is why I welcome Members of this Parliament being present and why I shall remain very firmly in cooperation with you."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples