Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-19-Speech-5-052"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991119.4.5-052"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr Liikanen, please listen to the case I am about to make. The Council of Ministers for Industry met on 9 November and I made the following comments in this regard at home. Europe has finally found strong words but deeds must now follow. We are now giving a clear signal to South Korea to abandon unfair methods of competition in shipbuilding. We will not accept domestic, i.e. European, shipbuilding being driven out of the market by unfair practices after it has been painstakingly modernised.
Secondly, the Korean economy is part of the global market. We are on the verge of new WTO negotiations.
Thirdly, Korea needs support to lift itself out of national bankruptcy. The IMF payments are making a clear statement.
Fourthly, Europe needs Korea. Just look at the order books and the volume of investment, in spite of the worldwide overcapacity which has been mentioned. This means that until a trade policy is developed by both Korea and Europe by means of bilateral negotiations and/or multilateral negotiations within the scope of the OECD, IMF and the WTO, as mentioned already by Mr Liikanen, enabling fair competition, we need various measures which are valid for a determined period until the present critical situation has been overcome. In my opinion, direct but contract-related support could be part of this, temporarily. This is the only instrument that has a direct effect, is transparent and, furthermore, strengthens competition. Returning to so-called European individual solutions, on the other hand, can mean that competition inside Europe, in addition, is distorted yet further, as in the past. We therefore need a strategy of different approaches. We would like to assist the Commission and the Council of Industrial Ministers in this approach with all our strength and energy.
In Germany alone, 21,000 jobs are threatened in shipbuilding along with 125,000 more in the supply sector. The irony of the situation lies, above all, in the fact that the hidden subsidies were facilitated by credits from the International Monetary Fund to surmount the financial crisis in the Far East.
Mr Liikanen, following the interesting report from the Commission of 13 October, the shipyard action day, Europe, through the Council of Ministers for Industry, has given Korea a yellow card. Any continuation of Korean dumping practices must be punished with a sending off.
The European shipbuilding industry finds itself in a serious crisis, one that has not just come about today. An urgent decision must now be taken as to whether to support shipbuilding in Europe and in so doing support the preservation of the entire maritime industry or to leave this hi-tech branch of industry to others. There can only be one answer to this: a clear declaration of our belief in European shipyards. Anyone who has been closely involved with shipbuilding knows that what we are dealing with here today is high technology, a branch of industry which is very much part of the future. Europe cannot, and must not, give it up.
There are also critics, however. Firstly, there are those who consider shipbuilding to still be an antiquated heavy industry, whose artificial preservation in Europe would come at too high a price, although a glance at, or visit to, one of the highly productive and efficient European shipyards tells a different story. I would be very pleased to arrange visits along these lines because I can tell you that it would be worth it.
Secondly, shipbuilding is sometimes classified as a hi-tech industry, but then it is implied that shipbuilders are over-dramatising their situation somewhat. It is said that they are just after financial benefits at a national and EU level, as happens in other branches of industry.
Thirdly, Who gets the money? The shipowners or the shipyards? The image of the shipyard has, on the whole, changed dramatically. The number of people employed in coastal regions or monopolistic ports that are already depressed has declined dramatically as a result of structural change. New technologies, fields of work and areas of management in particular as well as new tasks have overtaken the nostalgic Kon-Tiki and the warship. Road to sea transport projects to relieve the traditional road networks require all types of ship, including just in time feeders
and modern container ships, rapid ferry-boats and high-speed yachts, multi-purpose ships for the fishing industry and the coast guard service, large and small cruise ships and so on.
Europe’s maritime know-how in traditional roles and new market segments is a reliable, sustainable and natural resource and thus constitutes an added value for Europe. Europe’s medium-sized shipyards, in particular, have developed a high level of inventiveness in this field, but research and development, not just production and acquisition require money, and this is where aid comes in.
Anyone who knows me knows that I fight furiously against subsidies of all kinds, for distortions of competition follow hard on their heels, as a rule. It is not for nothing that I am, in addition, a member of the Committee on Budgetary Control. It is clear that if Korea continues to act in this way, it will undercut itself and will slide into financial ruin, with only itself to blame."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples