Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-06-Speech-3-168"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991006.6.3-168"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"I would like to contribute to this debate by making three remarks of the following nature – general, specific and political.
Firstly, a general remark. From the outset we should be in support of this round, we should have a positive outlook to ensure that we can avoid protectionism, promote free trade and extend prosperity in the world system to other parts of the world. It is a pity that Mr Pasqua has gone. He said that there was no debate in this Chamber, but I would refer him to results of the economies run by Britain and the United States where they are achieving in a world trade system high rates of growth, low rates of unemployment, low rates of interest. The French economy and one or two other continental countries could learn from that particular experience.
Might I say too, in terms of the general debate, that the communication of the Commission has indeed laid down four major principles for the Agenda of the round which we fully support in my Group. Not least we support the need to have a comprehensive round because if the round is as broad as possible, we will be able to make progress in the end.
On specifics, there is one comment I would like to make about agriculture. Quite clearly, this is going to be one of the most sensitive areas to be investigated, in terms of export subsidies, in terms of the vital need to maintain the rural areas, but also in terms of food safety. These are three of the main issues which the round will have to deal with. It may be, Mr Commissioner, that the Commission together with the US administration could come up with some kind of Green Paper sketching out where the differences are and where the common interests are between America and Europe because as you know, in your previous role, unless America and Europe agree on the major outlines in an international round such as this, we will never conclude. And therefore, maybe an informal document such as this would be useful for Seattle.
Lastly, of a political nature, there are a number of networks and non-governmental organisations now which are indeed in favour of world trade and would like to take a responsible part in these negotiations. There are others, which are much less responsible, more militant in nature and likely to be present in Seattle. It is for those reasons that, if we want to ensure that consumer and social and labour issues are part of the agenda, we must ensure that these networks do not actually take over our agenda. We therefore need, I believe, to have a large parliamentary delegation in Seattle from this Parliament at least equal in size to that of the US Congress to make sure that we can represent what the views of this House are there as well as being able to ensure that as this negotiation takes place on non-tariff as well as tariff issues. These are legislative problems and therefore legislators need to be present. I therefore endorse those colleagues who have said that we should have a strong parliamentary presence. The three institutions of the European Union must cooperate and it would be very interesting to have the both the Council’s and the Commission’s view on the need to have a strong European parliamentary presence in these negotiations."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples