Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-17-Speech-3-070"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991117.3.3-070"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner Lamy, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, on Monday the committee approved the report of Mr Schwaiger with a large majority and I must say how pleased I am with the overall way in which Mr Schwaiger has lead the debate. He has shown great openness which has, in turn, lead to us putting forward compromises which are not really compromises in the sense that they do not negate positions defended by individual groups; rather, we have genuinely fought and wrestled to find a European compromise, a European formulation which fully supports the position of the Council and of the Commission. This is what it is all about.
I am very grateful to the President-in-Office of the Council for pointing out the overall difficulties which exist in opening this new negotiating round in Seattle. We ought to be realistic and not fool ourselves: it will not be easy, in Seattle and beyond, to steer the course which we plan and hope to follow in Europe, particularly where it goes against the interests of our negotiating partners. Nevertheless, I wish you, Commissioner Lamy, and all those who are involved, the best of luck. I can assure you that you have the support of my group. We will give you our unqualified support.
However, the difficult opening also means, and we should not fool ourselves, that the old consensus which influenced the interplay between open world trade and binding trade rules and which always assumed that there was an essentially positive influence on national developments has since begun to crumble.
Even in the rich countries, in particular the United States, which have profited most from open markets, the increasing number of international competitors within the framework of the World Trade Organisation has lead, ironically I might add, to growing scepticism and concern that globalisation is also bringing with it impoverishment, destruction of the environment and the loss of national sovereignty. And with the loss of foreign policy as a whole, the temptation is also growing to accept foreign economy as a replacement.
The Socialist Group unreservedly supports the efforts of the Commission and the Council for a comprehensive negotiating round. Only this strategy can ensure that all the issues which have a European interest are truly given full consideration. Only in this way will it eventually become clear where the advantages and disadvantages for European states and European citizens lie. This is why we are also in favour of a single undertaking process. Nothing is decided until all the issues are on the table.
It is also necessary for the Parliament to be fully informed and involved. This is particularly important because so many issues, especially new issues, as many of my colleagues have already mentioned, are of an extremely emotive nature, for example, the issues of how we can include investments in the scope of the world trade round, new rules on competition, social and working standards and much more. Parliament must be fully involved.
The citizens and non-governmental organisations and companies of the European Union will follow negotiations in Seattle more intently than ever before and will focus their attention on the questions of whether world trade is generally becoming fairer, more socially-conscious and more well-balanced and whether it can take into account the interests of every party. The feelings against an untamed globalisation process, which are marked by a basic scepticism, will come to the fore during the negotiations. It is therefore necessary for us social democrats to make clear where the opportunities lie and where the globalisation process can have a more positive influence in the future. But we shouldn’t fool ourselves: less WTO does not automatically mean less globalisation. That is an illusion! It means less globalisation which can be influenced. In this respect, I would once again like to make it absolutely clear that the Commission and the Council have our support."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples