Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-17-Speech-3-074"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991117.3.3-074"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, if the Commission had not already accustomed us to this sort of vagueness conducive to the extension of its own power, the Schwaiger report would plunge us into a sea of confusion.
Of course, the thinking displayed by the Commission and taken up in the report offers no grounds for concern. There, one can detect only extremely virtuous motives, as on every occasion when general principles and noble ideas are being aired. However, it is the overzealousness which is demonstrated, and which the Schwaiger report faithfully echoes, which prompts legitimate suspicions, especially if we choose to recall that these same principles have only recently been flouted in connection with bananas, GMOs and hormone-treated beef, on which the European Union, represented by the Commission, suffered a defeat which came about so quickly as to pass unnoticed.
Given this recent precedent, and pending a proper assessment of the previous round, we thought it prudent to wait before throwing ourselves headlong into negotiations whose value still remains to be proven and where the rules of the game are apparently not the same for the European Union and for our main partner and competitor, the United States. But if the Commission is eager to commit the European Union to these negotiations, it is because, once committed, the Member States cease to be free agents. The Commission is claiming their support on the grounds that they have already exercised their sovereign prerogatives during the preliminary negotiations.
What is the truth of the matter? The Commission has been granted a mandate which is already the result of an intergovernmental compromise. Yet it must be able to negotiate, and thus make concessions on that basis. How can agreements be reached? Is there a list of no-go areas and another of designated victims? If the Commission’s wishes are granted, the WTO’s remit will embrace practically all human activities and will create a world in which everything is an item of merchandise, including our public services and our culture. Can we seriously ignore the fact that the specific characteristics of our education, public health or welfare systems would not survive this?
If the plan described here cannot be modified now or in future, what strategy is the Commission going to adopt? President Clinton’s Trade Representative, Mrs Barshefsky, who successfully fought Washington’s battles on bananas, GMOs and American beef, has sought the help of the American business community, which has provided her with a 31-page document detailing the desiderata of their industries. Do we have anything similar to set against this? We believe that only the Member States are in a position to frame appropriate policies which would properly safeguard our interests in this area."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples