Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-28-Speech-4-117"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991028.2.4-117"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"The Union for a Europe of Nations Group co-signed the joint motion for resolution on the restructuring of firms in the face of globalisation, since it indicates the beginning of a new spirit, distancing itself from free-tradism, and encouraging one to think of international trade “in terms of the more complex objective of sustainable development”. Indeed I believe that, even though it would be inappropriate to challenge the idea of international free trade, it should however now be forced to take account of a number of unquantified costs imposed on society in Europe. We must somehow continue to reap the advantages of free trade while neutralising its disadvantages.
Among the unquantified costs are the social costs resulting from firms relocating. Of course, the redistribution of the workforce internationally may contribute to the better use of the workforce, and thus ultimately benefit everyone. But, at the same time, competition in terms of wages marginalises the least qualified personnel in developed societies, and this is something we cannot accept.
Michelin, who have just implemented some controversial redundancies in France, are in precisely this type of situation, since its main competitor produces tyres in Eastern European countries where wage costs are five times less. The French Minister for Social Affairs, Mrs Aubry, put forward the idea of charging Michelin an exceptional unemployment contribution. This proposal seems absurd, since, in the event, this firm is, if anything, the victim.
As far as I am concerned, I would propose the exact opposite. Firms who have their manufacturing operations in low-wage countries should be forced to pay an exceptional unemployment contribution when they import goods into France, or into Europe. This contribution would be one element, but no doubt not the only one, in a system for balancing out social costs so as to better regulate international trade between heterogeneous areas, without however depriving us of the advantages of free trade.
We consider that this proposal is one that should be put on the table at the forthcoming trade talks of the Millennium Round which is about to begin in Seattle. I would furthermore like to take this opportunity to recall the main objectives of the Union for a Europe of Nations Group at the beginning of these negotiations.
1) We would like the importance of the problems which were not resolved by the Uruguay Round to be stressed, problems whose harmful effects we are only just starting to perceive, in the fields of social costs, as I have just mentioned, but also those of the environment, public health, food, etc. It should be remembered, even so, that, alone against the world, or almost, we refused to approve the Uruguay Round, both in the French National Assembly and in the European Parliament, for precisely this reason, i.e. we thought it extremely dangerous to agree to significant reductions in customs tariffs without first resolving the essential collateral problems. And so now we have to try to make up for lost time by entering these matters of social, environmental and health costs on the agenda for Seattle.
2) We want an objective and complete assessment of the Uruguay Round to be drawn up, based on the transparent consultation of governments and specialist non-governmental organisations. We refuse to negotiate in the dark, as at present. It is inappropriate for negotiations to begin in such conditions, and a period of moratorium must be decided while waiting for the assessment to be drawn up.
3) We object all the more to a number of matters which the European Union presently proposes to add to the Seattle agenda, subjects whose consequences we shall absolutely not be able to control. I shall cite in particular the question of international investments, which would lead to a second attempt to establish the ghastly Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI). I shall also cite the definition of a world competition policy which, as presented today, even more surely than current European policy would lead to public services being compromised.
4) Finally, we demand that future negotiations openly acknowledge one fundamental principle from the outset, the principle that each nation has the right to choose its own laws, and international trade must respect them. As a logical consequence of this, every nation has the right to express choices and preferences. Areas of preference, be they regionally-based (European Community) or functionally-based (the Lomé Convention), must immediately be recognised as legitimate if they are founded on the democratic decisions of the peoples concerned."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples