Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-06-11-Speech-1-033-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120611.18.1-033-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, I hope that someone is taking notes for the Danish Presidency. We also share the positive view on this resolution. It is extremely important for us that the Council be able to hear the voice of Parliament on the mandate. I believe that the institutional agreement framework is clear. It is not a binding opinion but, in view of both the economic and social crises, and the trade deficits that we have in Europe, it is absolutely essential to get trade agreements and the content of the negotiations right.
For that reason, should it happen, for once, that the Council listens to what Parliament has to say before establishing the negotiating mandate, I think that we could take a step forward in terms of the quality of the agreements that we can approve. I think that recent experience, including the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), shows that from a policy standpoint, it would be wise to listen to what Parliament has to say before entering into negotiations.
For the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, it is not a question of obtaining, pre-negotiation, concessions from the Japanese, as certain groups understand it. We are simply saying: let us have a transparent negotiation process that is clear, and thereby not enter into several negotiation processes at the same time. Let us have a clear mandate with which we can start negotiations.
That also raises some questions. Conducting negotiations with Japan and with the United States also raises some questions. In our Committee on International Trade, we have, on several occasions, had discussions with Pascal Lamy and today this process marks a break. Entering into negotiations with a large trade bloc such as Japan or the United States marks a break in the European position and, as such, puts to one side, or takes note of, the failed negotiations that took place in the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
We must take greater consideration of the consequences of these negotiations, in particular, when they primarily concern the regulatory system, investments, public markets, and all of the regulatory frameworks rather than tariffs. We must consider what bilateral negotiations signify as opposed to multilateral negotiations.
Then, Commissioner, you said that 90%, I believe, of the growth – this is your figure – will take place outside of Europe. I am not sure that Japan is the most dynamic area right now, but to benefit further from this international growth means being able to sell, which entails having a strategic vision of our economy and our industrial sector. Once again, I regret the fact that we have some 20 trade negotiations ongoing around the world without having an industrial policy, without knowing what we want for our economy, for example, for our automotive industry over the next 20 years."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples