Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-02-18-Speech-1-206"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2008-02-18"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Reform of trade protection instruments (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20080218.27.1-206"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2008-02-18-Speech-1-2072
lpv:speaker	lp:Christofer Fjellner2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; ENVI (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; EPP-ED (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; INTA (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with Iran (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3 member; CONT (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation for relations with Belarus (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Moderata Samlingspartiet (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	". Thank you, Mr Mandelson. When you stood here last, you spoke about the need for a reform of the trade protection instruments. You spoke with conviction on how globalisation and global supply chains had changed the preconditions for the trade protection instruments and that they therefore needed to be updated in order to remain effective and take account of Community interests. Everything you said then is still true. We need a reform of the instruments. Since then, however, it has proved tremendously difficult to bring about a reform. The conflicts between European companies and between the Member States are considerable. But that does not diminish the need for reform, on the contrary. The fact that everything is so infected and that, in example after example, we see the same battle formations drawn up on the same predictable lines in my opinion shows that we need change. We need a new focus on the instrument and a consensus which unites us. Now reform is postponed and looks quite remote. Certainly that is regretted by others as well as myself. But to argue about whose fault it was, whether it was the fault of the Member States, whether it was the Commission’s fault or which Member States threw a spanner into the works, serves no purpose. The blame game will not do anyone any good. For, although the proposal has been halted for the moment, the ideas must not be buried. We must not forget the matter. We must continue to debate it and focus on what we are actually agreed on. I think there is quite a lot. It is about transparency and openness. It is probably also about clearer rules on how we safeguard the Community interest. Perhaps even about how to modernise the definition of Community industry. But that presupposes that we keep the debate alive and continue to debate and make compromises. I hope that we will do that here in the European Parliament. I also hope that the Member States and the Commission will keep the debate alive."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph