Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-15-Speech-1-100"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000515.6.1-100"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Parliament is due to state its position at second reading on the regulation that forms the legal base for the general framework of cooperation between the European Union and South Africa. In the meantime, as you will remember, the Council of Ministers of the European Union adopted the General Agreement on Trade, Development and Cooperation last September on the basis of the Kinnock report, whose trade component was implemented in January of this year.
One of the fundamental components of the trade agreement concerns wines, and South Africa committed itself, under the terms of the agreement signed at the Berlin Summit in March 1999, immediately to cease using certain Community designations of origin, such as, specifically, “Port” and “Sherry”, which it had been using illegally for twelve years.
Following a few incredibly intricate episodes, successive adjournments and time-wasting manoeuvres by the South African negotiators in accepting a regulatory text for this agreement, both parties finally agreed that a new draft of the regulations for this agreement on wines, which is due to enter into force by 1 September, is to be laid down by the end of June.
I have, however, received information to the effect that the South Africans are still raising problems with regard to a draft which faithfully reflects the Berlin Agreement. They are trying to have these wine-producing issues covered by the WTO TRIPS dossier, which the European Union feels does not adequately protect Community designations. Furthermore, it appears to be a position that has been reached in conjunction with other New World wine-producing countries, given that the South Africans were negotiating bilateral agreements on wines with the European Union and then they suddenly changed their minds and wanted to postpone everything.
In view of these issues, I cannot agree with the rapporteur when he asks Parliament, as proof of good faith, to approve this framework regulation as a matter of urgency, without linking it to the trade aspect of the General Agreement on Trade, Development and Cooperation. I do not agree because all the European Union’s behaviour up until now has been nothing but a huge demonstration of good faith, to the extent that, contrary to what had previously been laid down, we accepted the commercial implementation of the agreement without the regulations for the agreement on wines being established. The time has come to say enough is enough! Cooperation requires a positive attitude of good faith and responsibility on the part of both cooperating parties. As this has not been the case, I cannot, in all conscience, support the rapporteur’s position."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples