Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-14-Speech-2-201"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000314.10.2-201"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Thank you very much for that reply. Let me reiterate my appreciation that the Commission and Parliament are, for the first time, speaking with one voice on changes to Parliament's role in important trade agreements.
I just want to ask you a non-legal and institutional question: if we look, for instance, at the decision which was taken to submit the Uruguay Round conclusions to the assent of this Parliament, there were some legal questions relating to the institutional and budgetary implications of the Agreement, but the decision was fundamentally a political recognition that this was an agreement of such importance that the strict boundaries of what was then Article 113 could, so to speak, be overstepped, thus allowing the Agreement to be submitted to Parliament's assent. My own view is that the accession of China to the WTO, whilst perhaps not quite as eye-catching as a multilateral agreement, is just as important to the future global trade regime, and that a similarly political position might therefore be taken by both Parliament and the Commission. I would urge you to do so. I would ask you what you think we could do together to promote this type of action."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples