Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-06-Speech-3-202"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991006.6.3-202"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
I do not intend to touch on all the subjects which we have debated, but I would simply like to thank the speakers – or at least most of them – for their support and to reply to some specific points or some of the questions posed by the speakers.
Finally, with regard to the representation of the European Parliament, I have already said, and I repeat, that the Commission is absolutely clear on this issue. We believe that to have the Members of the European Parliament, who are so well informed, by our side, in a negotiation of this type, is a trump card for us and hence for the Union. I have not therefore changed my opinion on this. We are aware that generally we work under your supervision and, sometimes, with your support.
On the question of the number, I consider this to be a matter which is in your hands and I would not presume to interfere.
First question: can we, or should we analyse the impact of something like a round on the economy or the environment? I believe that in the case of the economy, it is not necessary, even if it is not an exact science, because the majority of economists consider, for reasons which have just been indicated, that the liberalisation of trade is the right direction to take.
It is less obvious in the case of the environment, so much so that the Commission has taken the initiative to carry out a study of the environmental impact of the round which we are about to launch. One could therefore ask why we have not done the same in relation to the Uruguay Round. We did not do it because at the time we had not thought about it, we did not have the means and to do it now on the basis of the Uruguay Round does not make any logical sense. On the other hand, we have begun to do so for the next round. It is not an easy task and furthermore I think that the Union is a pioneer in this field.
It is clearly possible to improve the mechanism for the settlement of disputes! Let us remember however, between ourselves, that, on the whole, the results of the application of the mechanisms put in place after Marrakech are absolutely correct from the Union’s point of view, with regard to the relationship between the number of cases we brought against other parties and the number of cases brought against us, between the cases won and the cases lost. If we look at the statistics and try to consider the exchanges in question, the results are satisfactory.
It is true that I have not mentioned the term “Community preference”. I am not superstitious and, from the moment that it appeared in the treaties and I was made responsible for developing it, I have not felt the need to repeat it constantly.
To my knowledge, the United States have not yet given their opinion on the problem of the peace clause which takes us to 2003; we will clearly have to address the question of knowing what we will do after that.
With regard to the interpretation of the European Council of Berlin, which has, on this point, expressed its agreement on what has been called Agenda 2000, I have said, and I repeat, that it seems to me to be a good basis for discussion.
With regard to the possibility of developing countries gaining access to the techniques of commercial liberalisation, to the WTO and its panels etc, it is true, as has been said, that this poses a problem, that this objective is not yet within the range of many of them and that the use of these complex mechanisms is reserved for those who have the means, hence our proposal of technical assistance (which is furthermore mentioned in the Commission’s document), so that these countries may themselves possess and use the necessary legal technology.
As for the problems of health and education, we do not think, we do not foresee and we do not wish to call into question the public policy objectives in these areas within the proposals on the liberalisation of services in the next round."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples