Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-09-14-Speech-1-185"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090914.26.1-185"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, this is my first, or maiden, speech in this Parliament. As a UKIP MEP for the East of England, you will expect me to be a rebel and I will try not to disappoint you or my voters.
We are discussing today EU trade agreements and, in particular, that with South Korea, due to be signed this year. As we do not have much of the detail on this particular agreement, other than the fact, I believe, that two thirds of the benefits will accrue to South Korea and one third to the EU, I would like to make some more general points.
Many people are not aware that there are over a hundred separate bilateral EU trade agreements like this one; 116 is one estimate. There are trade agreements with countries such as the USA, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, India, China, Japan and South Africa. In Europe, there are trade agreements with Russia, Ukraine, Turkey and Liechtenstein.
There are also trade agreements with non-EU EEA and EFTA countries such as Switzerland and Norway. Norway’s trade agreement religiously protects both its fishing and farming, and Norway is not a minnow. It is the EU’s fourth largest import partner and sixth largest export market.
What should a trade agreement like South Korea’s really contain, then? Switzerland, I believe, is a strong example. There are provisions abolishing customs duties and trade quotas on industrial and agricultural products. There are provisions to allow Swiss citizens the right to live and work in EU countries and for EU citizens to live and work in Switzerland. There are provisions for Switzerland to be part of the Schengen passport-free area. The Swiss can be in the European Environment Agency, if they wish, in the EU’s film and education programmes, and they can apply for EU research grants. There is cooperation on airlines, asylum and judicial matters. In short, they have all the claimed benefits of EU membership, but without the cost.
It is true that Switzerland must pay CHF 600 million per year for access, but the Swiss Government reports savings for not being a member of the EU amounting to CHF 3.4 billion, a net saving of CHF 2.8 billion a year. Nor is Switzerland an insignificant trading partner either: 80% of Swiss exports go to the EU, and it is the EU’s fourth largest trading partner.
My point is that trade agreements can achieve the benefits of EU trade without the burden of high regulatory costs, loss of sovereignty and of resources. Even the Commission website admits ‘Switzerland can develop and retain its own regulations in other areas which deviate from EU rulings. It is in its own interests, such as in financial and in labour markets.’ How Britain would love to deviate in a similar way over the Working Time Directive, Temporary Workers’ Directive or the new Fund Managers’ Directive!
So I conclude in asking, why not Britain? Why cannot Britain have a similar, friendly trade agreement with the EU like South Korea instead of full EU membership? Britain on its own is the largest single trading partner with the EU with a GBP 40 billion deficit a year. We, too, can have the kind of assurances the Swiss enjoy. We could, and I believe we should, be an independent free trading nation once again such as Norway, Switzerland and even South Korea."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples