Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-09-06-Speech-1-038"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100906.16.1-038"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to add my thanks to the rapporteur for the good cooperation that has helped Parliament unanimously adopt an extremely fundamental position in Committee – which is very much to be welcomed – and which has once again made clear the significance of this safeguard regulation.
Together with the agreement with South Korea, this is the first agreement that we have negotiated following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, which gave Parliament a new role that it must play. Secondly, this Free Trade Agreement with South Korea and the safeguard regulation are also something of a blueprint for future agreements, and to this extent, we must tread particularly carefully here. These are two important reasons why we should not nonchalantly adopt diluted positions, but should really fight for prudent regulations to be adopted.
As you are aware, Commissioner, there are six points that we are particularly concerned about here. I would like to give a brief recap of what these are. Firstly, the duty drawback mechanism. If Korean manufacturers use parts from third countries when manufacturing their goods, they do not have to pay duty on these and can export them to Europe, while European manufacturers – even if they use the same parts – do not enjoy this exemption from duty. This therefore provides Korean manufacturers with a competitive advantage. This must be closely monitored to see whether it gives rise to distortion of the market. That cannot be achieved by means of a simple declaration; rather, it must be made legally binding by including it in the safeguard regulation as a basis for initiating investigations.
Secondly, there will also be regional variation. The sensitive sectors are not all represented equally strongly in all the Member States. Consequently, we must pay particular attention to how sensitive sectors in individual regions can be protected from targeted assaults. That is no simple task, because we are in an internal market – but a political solution must be found.
Thirdly, as this is the first agreement since the Treaty of Lisbon, Commissioner, it also involves a new balance between the Council and Parliament; and since we have also reached agreement with the Commission, it is only right that an equal role for Parliament and the Council is anchored in the agreement.
Fourthly, the implementation processes are, of course, your business – we have no desire to interfere with the operational implementation – but as Parliament we must ensure that Parliament’s rights are not brought into question in the comitology procedure. In particular, we need a right of withdrawal – this, too, must be ensured.
My fifth point is that many decades of experience with South Korea has shown us that in addition to tariff trade policy, non-tariff barriers to trade are constantly being constructed. We must therefore also have a clear mechanism for monitoring, reporting and initiating consultations should problems arise in the area of non-tariff barriers to trade.
My sixth point is that if we are serious about this new kind of trade agreement, then we must also involve and strengthen civil society. This means that fundamental ILO standards – such as standard 87, which grants workers the right to strike – need to be firmly rooted and implemented. In contrast, Article 314 of South Korea’s penal code states that ‘Interfering with the smooth running of the business’ is a criminal offence. We need to do something about this – civil society must be strengthened, fundamental ILO standards and fundamental environmental standards must be ensured, and civil society must also be involved in the monitoring of the agreement in the form of the Domestic Advisory Groups.
My final point, Commissioner, is that you said that provisional application will most likely occur once agreement has been reached. I would like to delete this ‘most likely’. Provisional application cannot take place until Parliament has reached a decision on this matter!"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples