Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-10-23-Speech-2-640-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20121023.49.2-640-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, an intelligent agreement between the EU and Japan would lead to stronger integration of the two economies. It goes without saying that 128 million potential customers in high-wage Japan offer very attractive prospects for European companies and their workforces in a range of sectors. Mutual integration of know-how in production chains could improve the global competitiveness of thousands of supplier companies. As you hear, I am using the subjunctive, because both your report this evening, Commissioner De Gucht, and important paragraphs in the EP resolution now before us make no offer of partnership; rather, they make unilateral demands to Japan. In my view, that is not a good starting point for long-term cooperation that brings mutual benefits. What we are discussing this evening is the mandate for the negotiations.
I am in favour of a clear, frank and open-ended discussion of the differences between the EU and Japan around the negotiating table. A real partnership cannot be based on either side dictating terms. That is why, as a Group, we have problems with the text of the resolution. Let us have a look at it. There are large chunks of the text that appear to have been written by the car industry. At a time when we are facing a climate crisis, how can we seriously demand a commitment from the Japanese Government to abolish the special treatment for electric and hybrid vehicles and the concessions for micro vehicles such as
just so that we can export more diesel-powered vehicles?
The resolution’s over-emphasis on the abolition of non-tariff measures also conflicts with the findings of the Copenhagen study on trade between the EU and Japan. This study recognises that many of these measures help to improve general welfare, especially in the fields of health, the environment and consumer protection. We should therefore look at what the proposed arrangements are intended to achieve and seek an outcome which brings benefits to society but still promotes trade.
Furthermore, companies surveyed have mentioned other reasons why they are deterred from investing in Japan. Above all, there is the language barrier, cultural differences, which also affect consumer preferences, high taxes and wage costs. Anyone who is reluctant to pay qualified translators, or to develop successful marketing strategies to promote their goods in Japan, or to pay local wages and taxes should invest at home instead. These types of trade barrier cannot and should not be removed by an agreement. In this context, the Committee on International Trade gained some very interesting insights last year into the strategy pursued by IKEA, a very large company that has tailored its operations to suit Japanese consumption patterns, culture and social standards.
We need an agreement with non-tariff elements of cooperation. Joint programmes can bring together businesses and trade unions, consumer associations, academics, administrators and young people from Europe and Japan. Let us work towards a new culture of cooperation. That would also bring practical benefits for Europe’s SMEs in terms of energy efficiency and high-tech cooperation."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Kei-Cars"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples