Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-06-11-Speech-1-066-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120611.19.1-066-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the reform of the generalised system of preferences (GSP) was very much necessary. It is a positive that there are now longer durations, and more certainties for exporters.
The criteria are too imprecise, however, as the Committee on Development has already said. Unfortunately, the Commission is only interested in World Bank categorisation. In that connection, Parliament has been very critical in the past, and on repeated occasions, of the use of gross domestic product as the sole criterion. The definition of upper-middle income countries can apply to countries with a per capita GDP of USD 4 000, but also to those where it is up to USD 12 000. That is thus an enormous – and far too large – range, and it in no way does justice to the realities on the ground. We certainly do not object to countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait being removed. The reform to that end was good therefore. These countries, however, are high-income countries. Russia and China, on the other hand, are upper-middle income countries, but we certainly need not be concerned by their removal from the scheme either.
Yet this category also includes much poorer countries, such as Namibia and Ecuador. Until now, the Commission had at least also applied the criterion of vulnerability, which covers countries that export little, or only a very small range of goods. That meant that it was possible to at least avoid the situation where countries that are dependent on fewer products and are thus very vulnerable are categorised too high.
Why, then, has the Commission removed this criterion? It will mean the removal from the scheme of countries such as the Dominican Republic, Fiji, Gabon and Botswana, even though their economies fit the criterion of vulnerability. Why did the Commission not retain the old criteria, which were, in any case, already inadequate? It raises the suspicion that the Commission wants to force poorer countries into free trade agreements that are unfavourable to them. The preference system, however, is an instrument to promote development and cannot be replaced by pure trade instruments, in which the path of a country or a region to development no longer plays any role. Fortunately, my fellow Members will still have the chance in plenary to vote in favour of our amendment, which incorporates vulnerability as a criterion.
The new arrangements will also mean, however, that trade regions will be dismembered. Neighbouring countries in customs unions will soon have to follow different rules when exporting to the EU. This absolutely does not reflect our objective of promoting regional integration. Instead of individual countries, the Commission should be giving greater consideration to development regions. Here, too, we in the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance have tabled an amendment, which I hope will meet with a great deal of support. It is also problematic for countries that one day were still benefiting from the GSP only to then find themselves outside the programme the next day. There need to be transitional periods, and we can see from our own Member States that just a few months are not enough for economic development.
Ultimately, we MEPs have to consider, for all legislative proposals, whether we focus just on speed and want to work with wonky compromises, or whether we would not rather involve the entire plenary. For me, the entire House is important for legislation, and for democracy, rather than time and speed. In fact, it takes time to enact democracy and to pass laws properly."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples