Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-07-06-Speech-4-209"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060706.31.4-209"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, protectionists are reluctant to admit that their proposals are protectionist but, rather, often hide their intentions. Mandatory origin marking is an example of this. I think now is the time to kill off some of the myths that the protectionists are spreading about this particular proposal.
The first myth is that consumers are calling for this measure, but the truth is that most do not care. The advocates use the Commission’s internet consultation on this issue to back them up, but they neglect to mention that 96.7% of the responses came from a single country, namely Italy, where industry is the driving force on this issue.
The second myth is that marking gives consumers relevant information, but in the global marketplace products and components more often than not have multiple countries of origin. It can be directly misleading to specify a single country of origin.
The third myth is that marking strengthens European competitiveness, but new technical barriers to trade to protect European industry have nothing to do with competitiveness, which is strengthened only by open markets within a good business environment.
The fourth myth is that mandatory marking would provide more consumer protection, as if safety were a question of geography. This could, at the very most, be of relevance in the case of agricultural products, but they are exempt from this proposal.
The final myth is that it is an inexpensive proposal, but the Commission's own impact assessment states, for instance, that imported clothes would, on average, be EUR 1 to 1.50 more expensive, while a pair of shoes would be EUR 2 dearer. Thus the cost would be in the millions, maybe even the billions.
In my opinion, origin marking is a badly disguised form of protectionism that will be expensive, and all this merely in order to force on foreign competitors new barriers to trade that do not qualify as tariffs. Why else would there be such a clear repudiation of the idea of introducing ‘Made in the EC’ labelling, something that is dismissed by saying that it would create unnecessary costs for European producers? It is currently prohibited to require origin marking by other Member States, as that constitutes protectionism. To now require it of third countries without recognising that, in this case too, it is protectionism, smacks of hypocrisy, in my view."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples