Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-05-09-Speech-1-140-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110509.20.1-140-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I believe there are two schools of thought on the free trade agreement with India.
Firstly, there is the view that goes: we now have an agreement which is the most extensive in the world. We therefore need to maintain it and it is important in itself and, then, as we trade with India, a number of what are commonly known as non-trade concerns, such as minority rights, child labour and caste discrimination, will crop up. I call this ‘the trader’s take on things’. This way of thinking pervades the resolution that is before us.
The second take on things, Mr President, actually demands that we, first of all, clear up non-trade concerns and only then reach an agreement. I call that ‘the preacher’s take on things’. We know that, in the latter scenario, India will definitely not want to enter into an agreement with us.
I would like to remind this House that in March 2009, we adopted a resolution which took into account both the trade and the non-trade concerns. In my opinion, the resolution before us is a retrograde step. It may contain a sustainable development clause, but it has no teeth. The Dalits have hardly been mentioned at all. Nature and the environment are the biggest losers in the current text. I cannot therefore endorse the text of the resolution. Our negotiators have to hold on to the 2009 resolution. The trader and the preacher must continue to cooperate and, I am quoting the Commissioner here, ‘only then will you have a balanced agreement’."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples