Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-06-06-Speech-1-164-000"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110606.19.1-164-000"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spokenAs | |
lpv:translated text |
"Canada is one of Europe’s oldest trade partners. It is only natural, therefore, that this relationship should be formalised via a comprehensive trade agreement. I do wonder, however, about the content of several negotiating chapters.
Firstly, the EU and Canada have different rules of origin systems. As Canada is a member of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Commission must undertake to find a satisfactory solution regarding both industrial products and agricultural or fisheries products, so that Canada does not become a gateway through which goods from other NAFTA members enter Europe.
The Commission will also have to negotiate a solution that can be applied to two different geographical indication systems: in Canada, ‘geographical indication’ is a mere adjective; in Europe, it is a bona fide trademark. If European geographical indications are genuinely to be protected, the Canadian authorities will have to recognise the European concept.
Regarding the chapter on public works contracts, lastly, Canada must grant the EU the same access it granted the United States under their trade agreement; in other words, European businesses must be able to tender for contracts in the provinces, regions and certain municipalities."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples