Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-05-22-Speech-2-071"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070522.8.2-071"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, I am grateful to Mr Sturdy. Everyone agrees that trade can help fight poverty. Unfortunately, the trade benefits for ACP countries, for which the Cotonou Agreement provides, have little effect in practice; nor, in fact, does the ‘Everything but Arms’ initiative.
This is all attributable to the deficient trade situation in the developing regions in question, the high, standardised European import requirements and the rules of origin that have, to this day, not been reviewed or tailored to practical situations. It is because of these problems that the ACP countries are not operating within the world economy; if anything, they are moving away from it.
For this reason, the debate on the economic partnership agreements should not, in the first instance, be about acquiring free-trade agreements, but rather about concluding development contracts. What should be central in these development contracts is trade development within the own region, including the institutional framework and personal means that are difficult to establish, along with the Millennium Goals. Not until much later can we consider opening the markets for the EU. This is, as we see it, where the problem lies.
Everything seems to be geared towards 1 January 2008, which is, of course, logical, because the deadline expires on 1 January, but meanwhile, the flexibility now on offer in the negotiations is, in actual fact, insufficiently tied to development indicators and much more to vague time indications. The idea of 25 years has been floated, although this has not been mentioned explicitly anywhere.
Is the Commission prepared to link EU access to the markets in question to a development benchmark, so that we are certain that the local markets over there are ready for this? With regard to the regions that ultimately decide against a European Partnership Agreement (EPA) – and we would like to reiterate the negotiations on this subject enjoy our unqualified support – but if it is decided not to conclude an EPA, is the Commission also prepared to make a point of accepting the alternative of a Generalised System of Preferences (GSP+)?
We are familiar with the technical discussion, but as we see it, disregarding bananas and sugar – as these have been taken out of the equation in practice, not least by us – this is very much a real alternative to the current trade conditions. If the EU is prepared to commit to a rapid reform of the rules of origin – and this is something which the Commissioner confirmed in a different debate a moment ago – then this could well mean that we can make some headway in this respect.
Turning to the Singapore themes, I think it is wonderful, of course, if regions would like to do something with these at any time. There is nothing wrong with that, although we should not impose anything.
It is of the utmost importance to meet the deadline of the EPA negotiations, as I pointed out before. This is why we actually want to focus on development contract thinking, in which respect the Socialist Group in the European Parliament has advised that we should give ourselves room during the negotiations and time, content and money, and conclude a negotiation contract in the true sense of the word. If the EPA were to turn out this way, this would be fantastic; if not, it is simply not a good offer. I would also urge you to bring the GSP+ to the negotiating table as a real alternative, and talk about it openly in the debates."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples