Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-13-Speech-1-061"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"1999-12-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:WTO Millennium Round2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.19991213.3.1-061"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:1999-12-13-Speech-1-0622
lpv:speaker	lp:Paul A.A.J.G. Lannoye2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Ecolo (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Conference of Presidents (1999-07-20--2002-01-07)3 chair; G/EFA (1999-07-20--2002-01-07)3 substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (1999-09-14--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on Development and Cooperation (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, from the outset, I would like first of all to thank the Commission and, more particularly, Commissioner Lamy for the way in which he involved the parliamentary delegation in the work. I think this is a first, and it certainly proved to be a positive experience for everyone concerned. There are, nonetheless, differences of opinion. In particular, I think that the proposal relating to the “biotechnology” working party was not the right one, but it would be truly boring if we always agreed on everything. Moreover, it is important that we examine the causes of the failure. Several of these have been mentioned. They seem accurate to me. I would add one more: I believe that developing countries can no longer accept being treated as they have until now. Having the representatives of the most industrialised countries meet in a conference room, at the end of the negotiations, while the others wait in the antechamber before having to sign a text prepared in advance seems to me an unacceptable process, and I believe that many of us here would agree with me on that. Our way of negotiating must therefore be reviewed. A whole raft of issues to do with the WTO must also be reviewed. In particular, I think that besides the problems with the decision-making and negotiation mechanisms, the basic principles of the WTO also are in need of a face-lift. Let us not forget, even so, that it was in the 1940s, after the war, that the first GATT negotiations took place, and that at the time people were still traumatised after the great depression of 1929 and the thirties, and that the priority then was to track down overcautious, dangerous protectionism. Fifty years on, I feel that priorities have changed. I believe that this is something which must be reviewed and, above all, the question must be asked as to whether generalised free trade is compatible with States, the European Union in particular, having the opportunity to respond to other requirements, primarily, in my opinion, the requirement for sustainable development throughout the world. A number of WTO mechanisms and principles run counter to this objective of sustainable development both socially and ecologically. I believe we must have the courage – now that we have time for this – to analyse these mechanisms seriously and to make proposals, establishing dialogue, as a priority, with developing countries. My impression is that the European Union is very fond of dialogue with the USA. I am not opposed to that, of course, but I believe that favouring dialogue with the USA is also likely to backfire on us when, at a later date, we have to discuss matters with developing countries, particularly ACP countries. I think this must be reviewed, and the legitimate claims of these countries must be taken more seriously."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph