Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-03-23-Speech-1-084"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2009-03-23"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Economic Partnership Agreement between the EC and Cariforum – Stepping-stone Agreement towards an Economic Partnership Agreement between the EC and Côte d'Ivoire – EC-Cariforum States Partnership Agreement – EC-Côte d'Ivoire Stepping-stone Economic Partnership Agreement – Stepping-stone Economic Partnership Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and Ghana, of the other part – Interim Partnership Agreement between the Pacific States, on the one part, and the European Community, on the other part – EC-SADC EPA States Interim Economic Partnership Agreement – Economic Partnership Agreement between EC and Eastern and Southern African States – Economic Partnership Agreement between the EC and the East African Community Partner States – Stepping-stone Economic Partnership Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and Central Africa, of the other part (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"es"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20090323.14.1-084"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2009-03-23-Speech-1-0852
lpv:speaker	lp:Ignasi Guardans Cambó2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation for relations with the United States (2007-03-14--2009-04-22)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of south-east Europe (2007-03-14--2009-04-22)3 unknown; Convergència Democràtica Catalunya (2004-07-20--2009-04-22)3 vice-chair; INTA (2007-02-01--2009-04-22)3 substitute; LIBE (2007-01-31--2009-04-22)3 member_of_the_bureau; ALDE (2004-07-20--2009-04-22)3 substitute; CULT (2007-01-31--2009-04-22)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, as others have said, this debate is undoubtedly important; indeed it has just been called historic, among other things because of the number of hours devoted to this work and because of the political debate that has led up to it. There are some points outstanding and there are concerns – for instance, to mention just one example, the situation of the outermost regions, which merit specific attention in the case of the Cariforum – but, as a whole – I mean politically – we fully support both this negotiation and the need for it to continue and for Parliament to monitor this negotiation effectively. One of the several amendments we have tabled states that parliamentary monitoring of this issue should be carried out uniformly and not in different ways depending on the country in question. I think it is a good thing that, amidst the commotion that has preceded this debate and to some extent surrounds it now. I say commotion with all due respect for the contributions from civil society, NGOs and the national parliaments that are also involved. In the midst of all this, it is important to understand why and how we have got to where we are today. We need to understand that negotiating these association agreements with the ACP States is not a political decision taken at will by the European Union, as if it had various options on the table and chose this one rather than others. It is essentially a legal requirement based on the rules of legality laid down by the World Trade Organisation. It is a necessity born out of the circumstances surrounding our previous legal framework on trade with the countries of the ACP zone. It should also be remembered, right here and now, that those who condemned the European Union’s relations with the ACP States were precisely those other developing countries that had perfectly legitimate claims for access to our markets but had been left out, for the simple reason that they were not former colonies of current EU Member States. Thus the European Union had, and still has to some extent, two yardsticks: one for its former colonies and another for other countries with a similar level of development that do not come under this system. That is what became unsustainable and what those same countries made it their mission to emphasise within the World Trade Organisation. Apart from anything else, we must consider that the system we are going to replace, first the Lomé Convention and then the arrangement based on the Cotonou Agreements, in no way achieved the desired results. No one can claim that the Cotonou system was entirely satisfactory. If it had been, the figures – the volume of EU trade with those countries – would be far higher than they are today. Therefore we should not claim, either, that we are going to replace something that has yielded results, because that is not the case. For all these reasons, these Economic Partnership Agreements should be seen as a great opportunity, particularly for all those of us who believe that the development and growth of these countries cannot depend solely on external aid. Clearly, I refer especially to those countries that are party to these agreements but are not among the least-developed countries. In this regard the concept of ownership, of taking control of one’s own destiny and not depending exclusively on external aid, lies politically – and I may say philosophically – behind these partnership agreements. In principle, my group therefore fully supports the negotiation of these agreements by the European Commission and the fact that they should be comprehensive and complete, covering not only goods but also services and the rules of competition; that they should be agreed as a whole. Another thing to consider is, of course, how these negotiations and the specific topics that are on the table have been handled. On this subject I would refer to what each of the rapporteurs said concerning the different areas, because we are talking about the overall approach, whereas, in fact, each negotiation is being dealt with separately."@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph