Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-10-23-Speech-2-260-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2012-10-23"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the EC and Israel on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (CAA) (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20121023.17.2-260-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2012-10-23-Speech-2-261-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Véronique De Keyser2
lpv:spokenAs	member; DROI (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 vice-chair; S&D (2012-06-07--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the Palestinian Legislative Council (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; DEVE (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 substitute; AFET (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Parti Socialiste (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	". Madam President, in our opinion, the proposed Agreement on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (ACAA) has three major problems today. The first is institutional. It is still shocking to learn that once the European Parliament’s agreement has been secured for the pharmaceutical sector, Parliament will have no further say in the matter for other sectors that Israel may include. For us, that is like buying a pig in a poke or, if you prefer, taking the European Parliament for a fool. We will continue to fight for Parliament’s prerogatives to be respected. That is why, to clarify this point, my group has asked for this report to be referred back to committee in order to obtain some guarantees on the matter. The second problem is legal and relates to the competence of the Israeli Responsible Authority with regard to products from the settlements, settlements that are illegal under international law. We have presented an interpretative statement that covers this aspect. You just raised this point, Mr De Gucht, but that declaration is just wishful thinking unless it is endorsed by the three institutions, and the Council in particular, and to date we have had no guarantees on that point. The third problem is political and it is not the least of them. This agreement, which was part of the proposal to upgrade relations with Israel that was frozen in 2008, even though legally it could be concluded in the current framework, is a upgrade. However, nothing has changed on the ground since 2008; if anything, things are worse. The blockade of the Gaza Strip continues, the settlements have expanded dramatically, in violation of international law, and the peace talks have come to a halt. The Lieberman Plan presented in August to the EU High Representative, Baroness Ashton, which proposes Palestinian districts around the Israeli cities, shatters any hope of a two-state solution. Indeed, just a few days ago, Benjamin Netanyahu tried to push through part of the Levy Report, which would legalise the settlements that the Israeli themselves previously deemed illegal. That is not our position. Nor is it the position under international law. Do we therefore want to reward this position of Mr Netanyahu’s Government with the ACAA? That is unacceptable, at least for socialists and democrats; unacceptable in relation to our values and unacceptable in relation to the Treaty of Lisbon and the new Neighbourhood Policy, which is based on ‘more for more’. On that basis, if the report is not referred back to committee today, our Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament will vote against the ACAA."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"de facto"1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph