Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-05-09-Speech-1-122-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110509.19.1-122-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, first of all, I would like to apologise for not being present at the beginning of the debate, but I was only just arriving from Brussels by plane and you were – how shall I put it? – in advance of the schedule, which is very laudable, but which resulted in my being a little bit late.
We have taken notice of the problems that can arise with the European textile industry, and with the ethanol industry. There is a safeguard clause proposed that is, I think, sufficient to counter possible problems that might arise, so this is fairly clear and you are either in favour of it or against it. The Commission is in favour of it and I think that, both from the point of view of the economic development of Pakistan and from the point of view of the security issues that are certainly linked with Pakistan, it would be a major mistake on the part of the European Parliament not to take up this responsibility and vote this down.
I have taken notice of all the speeches that have been made on this report. I would simply like to stress a couple of points. First, we are not discussing an FTA. It seems to me that a lot of speeches start from the assumption that this is a kind of FTA with all the elements that go with it. For example, the problem of social conditionality, of sustainability as we call it, should not be considered here because this is very clearly a measure that is limited in time.
Secondly, we are not discussing the GSP either. We will do that in the near future and then there will be the discussion as to which countries can be included and which not.
No, this is a proposal that the European Commission has made with respect to the massive flooding in Pakistan, time-bound for two years, with the possibility of its being continued for another year.
Let me also say that the amendment to limit it to one year, honestly speaking, to my mind does not make much sense: it would be better for you simply to vote against it.
Why have we not yet come to a conclusion, and why is this argument being used now, when about a year has already elapsed since the flooding took place? It is simply because we have just introduced this request for a waiver with the WTO, but within the WTO we face serious problems with the neighbours of Pakistan. I do not think I have to name them. We tried to find a solution. I think we were moving in the right direction and we will have to see in the coming weeks what the impact may possibly be of what has recently been happening in Pakistan.
But there we are in the hands of the WTO as to whether or not we get a waiver, and this waiver can only be obtained by unanimity, so we cannot force this within the WTO. We can only try to do our best to get it through.
I would also like to say that I am not talking, as one of the previous speakers has done, about crocodile tears and hypocrisy and so on. That is not up to me to say, but let us say in a very neutral way that what has been said tonight is not necessarily consistent with what has been said in the past. It is not because time has elapsed and that we have not yet got a waiver that the argument as such has changed.
Since the beginning, there has been a discussion as to whether or not this was directly in favour of the people struck by the flooding. It is partially, yes. Since the beginning, it has been said that there should also be humanitarian aid. There has been humanitarian aid up to EUR 480 million so the arguments have not changed and I really do not see the merit in us now, all of a sudden, switching to another direction."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples