Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-06-11-Speech-1-030-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120611.18.1-030-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, and of course – at least virtually – President-in-Office of the Council, our resolution is essentially directed towards the Council, as the reality is that we believe – and this touches on Mr Leichtfried’s question – that we, as Parliament, should proffer our position on the issuing of a mandate before one is issued. There is a good reason for this.
You have already addressed the resolutions that we have adopted with numerous questions. These resolutions did show quite clearly the two sides of the coin when it comes to trade relations with Japan. We support increased trade relations with Japan – that much is clear – as the negotiations at WTO level have ground to a halt and Japan is one of our most important trading partners in the world. Over the last year, EU exports to Japan had a total value of around EUR 49 billion, while exports from Japan to the EU came in at around EUR 69 billion – in other words, we are talking about a very important part of our economic dynamics. That being the case, we need to also strengthen this so that the inter-exchange and the growth dynamic develop further. That is right and proper. On the other side of the coin, however, when it comes to market access on the Japanese side, we actually have non-tariff barriers to trade. That, after all, is why the Commission carried out this scoping exercise, and it was only recently that we obtained the results.
Once again, analysing this situation precisely is the right thing to do. No sooner do we look, for example, at the key sector that is the motor industry, than three non-tariff barriers to trade hit us right in the face. Of course there is, for one thing, an agreement at UN level about technical standards for cars, as well as for vehicle parts. Clearly, recognition of this is crucial to market access. The European Union has signed up to nearly all of these guidelines, whereas Japan has only signed up to 43. In order to also be able to supply car parts to the Japanese market with unfettered access, it is actually a basic prerequisite that Japan, too, should sign up to these UN conventions.
If I consider, now, the tax breaks enjoyed by environmentally friendly vehicles, I can see that, in Japan, these depend solely on test cycle JC08. Logic dictates, however, that this cycle is not adhered to by vehicles that we produce here, as we test according to a different cycle, the European driving cycle. It needs to be ensured that the same tax benefits for environmentally friendly vehicles – we define these as vehicles emitting below 90 grams of CO
per kilometre – are ensured for European vehicles in Japan, too, without jeopardising the standard by so doing.
Of course, traders must also have the opportunity to offer their cars for sale in Japan, and to have them maintained in workshops there. Current property law does not provide for that.
So, then, we need a tougher re-presentation of the scoping exercise and clear guidelines from Parliament. That is why we are calling on the Council to wait until September to issue a mandate, that is, until Parliament has drawn up clear guidelines for a mandate for trade relations with Japan."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"2"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples