Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-05-22-Speech-2-511-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120522.21.2-511-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to take this opportunity to point out a couple of problems with the report on EU-China trade relations. Overall, it is a good report that draws attention to some significant problems: technical barriers to trade, non-technical barriers to trade, problems involving rare earth elements, and so on – circumstances that I myself pointed out in my capacity as rapporteur for this area in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection.
The fact that I nonetheless have some concerns regarding the report is due to its heavy emphasis on reciprocity. As a liberal and an advocate of free trade, I think this is the wrong road to go down. Reciprocity is an incredibly emotionally charged word that means something very different to different people, so to require reciprocity would be akin to throwing a grenade into the negotiations with China. It can only be interpreted as meaning that the EU wants to close its markets to the same extent as China, which would be tantamount to a trade war.
Let me state that I have nothing against imposing requirements on our trade partners and using the strength of the EU, but I feel that we have to be cautious about using the word reciprocity. For that reason, I would have preferred wording along the lines of creating equal and fair competitive conditions, or a level playing field as we call it – which is the term that I myself used in my opinion."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples