Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-09-12-Speech-3-533-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120912.28.3-533-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for attending this evening’s sitting, so that we can discuss this matter. This issue is clearly not of interest to everyone in plenary this evening.
With these safeguard regulations we are still feeling our way somewhat in relation to the Treaty of Lisbon, because the roles of the various institutions and where certain things are regulated are still unclear. Thus we now have to incorporate a number of items in the legislation, by which I mean the ordinary legislation, that have already been included in the wording of the Treaty and in the Council’s decision, but which were in the wrong place. That is why it is good practice to take a closer look at the overall process of establishing this safety net for the agreement with Colombia and Peru.
On the one hand, we are placing demands on Colombia and Peru in the agreement and now we must also see how we can define the requirements that we place on ourselves. It is also important that the safety net should remain practicable. It makes little sense to set down regulations that are never applied. This is how things were done in the past. For this reason, we should exercise the powers we have to dust down the safety net legislation so that we can apply it in a positive way.
Commissioner, we are concerned about five points. The first is to see what the actual criteria are for casting a safety net. I am quite convinced that, in order to determine when something is having a detrimental effect on the market, we must also address the issue of social standards because, of course, the violation of social standards leads to dumping and can give rise to competitive advantages. Accordingly, this is one of the criteria for applying safety nets, particularly in the area of bananas.
Now for my second point. If we are cautious in our approach to the Treaty of Lisbon, then we will naturally find ourselves being more and more cautious about the role of the European Parliament. It is fundamental for us that we, like all the other European institutions, should have the power to launch an investigation.
My third point is that if we are serious about more transparency, then this also means that we must include civil society in our dialogue to a greater extent and that this should be institutionalised when we come to examine this agreement with Colombia and Peru. That is why I want to strengthen dialogue with civil society. We need more transparency. Commissioner, you always refer to the safeguard regulations with Korea as a template. The problem is that you have forgotten Article 11 of the agreement with Korea when it comes to the issue of the transparency of monitoring and reporting. I am referring to the requirement that a report must be presented that covers all the different angles, which is something we want to see guaranteed.
The fifth issue relates to providing security for the banana producers in Europe’s regions."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples