Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-05-22-Speech-2-021"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070522.6.2-021"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, when we talk about the competitiveness of global Europe, we are not talking about a theoretical or academic issue, we are talking about creating wealth, about creating jobs, about well-being for our citizens, about Europe's role in the world, about its responsibilities, and about how it exercises them, with regard to its neighbours, its commercial partners and also with regard to those in the weakest position, who may suffer most as a result of what has come to be known as globalisation.
On behalf of my group, I would like to welcome Mr Caspary’s report, to which, in the subsequent vote, we shall add certain amendments that will improve and expand on some of its statements, not with a view to removing anything, but with a view to contributing certain ideas to support the amendments presented by other groups.
Trade and the free market are not a dogma. They are not a religious truth that must be defended in all circumstances.
It is a reality, a fact, that only free trade, with clear and fair rules for everybody, can contribute to creating wealth, well-being and development. Protectionism can never do that, and there has never been any evidence that it contributes anything. Free trade, the openness of markets at global level, lead indirectly to the creation of greater individual freedoms for those who benefit from that freedom. We are therefore in favour of the opening up of markets and liberalisation, not because we are defending a dogma or a religious truth, or a principle to which we are politically attached, but because its benefits are absolutely clear.
When the European Union defends that same principle, it is defending, in the new strategy of a global Europe, this openness of the markets at global level, and it must also fulfil its own responsibilities. The European Union has serious responsibilities. It has them when it represents us and when it defends us.
For that reason, and my group agrees with what other spokespeople have said in this regard, this is not the time to revise the commercial defence instruments, it is a time, perhaps, to adjust them, but not to remove them, not to modify them, because it is the European Union’s responsibility not to lose sight of the restrictions that still exist, in many cases non-tariff restrictions, which are gradually being imposed. I would highlight one of them that we have had the opportunity to discuss: the commercial denigration suffered by European products in certain countries.
The European Union also has a responsibility when it negotiates on our behalf, when it calls for access to the services market, when it negotiates in the field of public tenders.
It is very important that our commercial policy is not just compatible, but also that it fits perfectly, with our development policy. I am not saying that that is not the case already, but there is a risk that we could have a commercial policy that does not run parallel with our obligations in the field of development. We shall therefore also table some amendments to this report in order to clarify this notion."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples