Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-14-Speech-2-202"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000314.10.2-202"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Like you, Mr Clegg, I believe that China’s accession to the WTO, whenever it takes place, is a matter of crucial importance.
Having said that, I feel that the comparison you make with the Uruguay Round is not totally justified. At the time of the Uruguay Round, particularly when the mechanism for the settlement of disputes was being set in place, there was a institutional shift in the international legal order which justified assent, specifically with regard to an unequivocal reading of the Treaties.
As regards China, legally speaking this is the procedure for the accession of a country to the WTO, and it is proceeding according to a relatively appropriate and familiar route, one which, for the time being, has not given rise to any disputes. I suppose, then, that the Council will be reluctant to require assent because the Council is not in the habit of going much further than is required by the Treaties in terms of consultation with Parliament.
The important thing, from our mutual point of view, is that, when the time comes, we can, either in committee or in plenary session, have a debate on the conditions which, I hope, will be those we have agreed with the People’s Republic of China, and that this will be completely transparent.
Personally, I am perfectly willing to take part in this. I know, when the time comes, that questions of a rather more political nature will be asked. That is perfectly normal, I feel, and I look forward to it."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples