Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-10-23-Speech-2-661-000"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20121023.49.2-661-000"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, in repeated debates in plenary and in committee, I have made it clear that I am a staunch supporter of a free trade agreement with Japan, but also that such support is conditional. We have the scoping exercise and we also have agreement on a number of non-tariff barriers that have to be removed. These cannot be dissociated. It is very clear to me that Japan has to deliver on those NTBs, and within a very clear timetable.
We have agreed on the roadmap, setting out how to do this. I must say that I am not very pleased at the moment, in fact, because there were a couple of obligations Japan should have fulfilled by the end of September, and we are now at the end of October. We should stick to our timetable. I will say this very clearly to our Japanese counterparts; I did so as recently as a week ago, and I will say it again. I will also say it to the Council, at the Council meeting of Ministers responsible for trade that will take place on 29 November.
We have a clear understanding with the Japanese on the scoping exercise and on what needs to be fulfilled and resolved, including for example the zoning problem that has been mentioned by a couple of Members. We should take them at their word, and their words should be followed by deeds.
I think the review clause that a number of Members of Parliament mentioned in their speeches – especially the rapporteur, Mr Kazak – is an essential element. I do not want it to be automatic, however; I do not believe that automaticity is a good negotiating tool. If it should be demonstrated that Japan is not fulfilling its commitments, you should summon me before your Parliament and ask me why I am not putting an end to the negotiations. I do not believe, however, that it is realistic to expect automaticity to work in negotiations.
On sustainability, Mr Bütikofer, that issue will be part of the negotiations and it will be part of the agreements, as by the way it is in the whole new generation of agreements that we have been negotiating. I also believe that, in the case of Japan, there are a number of very important topics in that area that we should address.
Mr Caspary mentioned – although I see that in the meantime he has disappeared – that the only aim of the Japanese is to export more cars to Europe. I do not know about that. It is very interesting to look at their export figures to Europe, because they are gradually going down, not up. They have gone from EUR 900 000 down to about EUR 600 000 over a couple of years. It is also not true that Japan is just exporting smaller cars to Europe. Japan is in fact exporting cars in the mid- and upper range, so we should take care that when we discuss these matters we do so on the basis of the facts.
I have one last remark to make on industrial policy, which Mr Zalba Bidegain mentioned. If I understand his reasoning, it is as follows. If we want industrial production to increase from 16 % to 20 %, then we should take care with the Japanese. I believe this is a very defensive strategy or tactic – whatever you want to call it – for a number of reasons.
First of all, the industrial production share of GDP is not going to go up from 16 % to 20 %. That simply will not happen. To people who make this claim, my answer is to ask what is going down in that case, to make up the full 100 %. What is going down? Services? I cannot see that. Could it be agriculture? I do not think we would like that. Of course, in your country at the moment the industrial sector’s percentage share of GDP is going up, because you have seen a tremendous dip in real estate, which appears in the statistics as services, whilst the industrial sector as such has not changed. What can go up is the output of the industrial sector, and that is in fact happening. If you look locally at Europe, you can see that is what is happening, but not, I believe, in terms of industrial production as a share of GDP. Secondly, I believe the kind of economy that we have can only grow if it is in interaction with the other big players on the world market. We have become very interdependent, and that goes for the United States, Japan, China and also Europe. We have to take that interdependence into account and make sure that our position in that global arena is as strong as possible."@en1
|
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples