Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-11-24-Speech-3-480"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101124.26.3-480"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that, just as the European Union is trying to redefine its trade policy after the Treaty of Lisbon, while at the same time trying to reconcile it with its industrial policy, the fact that this Parliament is simultaneously debating three reports that address issues ultimately falling within the same political and public debate on ‘what is trade and how can it be reconciled with social, environmental and human rights issues?’ is to be welcomed.
In fact, we are ultimately in a state of permanent schizophrenia: everywhere, companies are relocating, social rights are being called into question, environmental degradation is increasing and, at the same time, we are negotiating free trade agreements, we are negotiating within the World Trade Organisation (WTO) a whole series of measures which, unfortunately, are totally out of step with the public debate in which our citizens are trying to engage.
How can we explain to our public today that a football entering the European market produced under decent working conditions, where the environment is respected, and a football produced by child labour or in a country where trade unions are prohibited is the same football? We cannot explain this to our public. Our responsibility today is therefore to integrate these environmental and social issues into trade.
Regarding my report more specifically, with respect to trade there are currently a number of European countries whose imports of products largely offset the reductions in their own emissions. A third of Europe’s emissions are not produced in Europe but correspond to imported goods. It is therefore essential to integrate the climate issue into our trade policies.
How can we explain to our public that, at the same time as concluding a free trade agreement which will potentially lead to deforestation, we are going to Cancún to negotiate a Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) agreement aimed at providing financial compensation for non-deforestation in the countries of the South? It is therefore essential to reconcile these different issues.
When we drafted this report – and I would like to thank the shadow rapporteurs from the various groups – we tried to be as constructive as possible. I hope this will be reflected in the vote tomorrow. We also tried to put an end to black or white debates. We no longer say that trade liberalisation and combating climate change will destroy 100% of our industries in Europe, where, in a way, we do not care, because the climate issue must take precedence.
When we worked on the issue of carbon leakage, for example, we always tried to specify which sector of activity might be put at risk and which tools could be developed to protect that sector. The same is true for the laws governing the framework for the anti-dumping discussion at the WTO. The same is true for production processes and methods. On all these issues, we tried, with the other groups, to come up with proposals to move things forward, and I believe that we have come up with concrete proposals that are commensurate with our ambitions, with the mandate of the European Commission and of all the European institutions.
I would just say once again that I hope that the cooperative, constructive spirit in which we drafted this report will be reflected in the vote tomorrow and, once again, I would like to thank all my colleagues for the work they have done."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples