Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-01-Speech-4-039"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010301.2.4-039"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I should like to congratulate Mr Salafranca and Mr Marset Campos on their excellent reports, which have enabled us today to discuss the mandate for negotiations on two agreements, as has already been stated. These are, firstly, the agreement between the European Union and Mercosur, and secondly, the agreement with Chile. I wish to point out that the agreement with Mercosur may constitute the first agreement in the world between two customs unions. Parliament must therefore give due recognition to the importance of these agreements, not only because they will contribute towards improving relations between the European Union, its Member States and the countries of the southern cone of the American continent, but also because they will foster greater balance in the development of partnerships for cooperation in Latin America. This will act as a counterbalance to the growing influence in the region of the North American Free Trade Area movement (NAFTA). From this point of view, these agreements are strategically important and deserve our protection at a political level.
I should like to make two additional observations, Mr President. The first is that I, like the rapporteurs, feel that the Council’s decision to make the signing of the agreements dependent on the conclusion of the WTO negotiations is a negative one. I am pleased, however, to note that Portugal and Spain agreed, at the recent Luso-Hispanic Summit in Sintra, to unite their efforts to separate the agreements from the conclusion of the WTO round of negotiations.
The purpose of my second comment is to state that the mandate for negotiations considers both the political and cooperation approaches in addition to the trade aspect, which is to be expected. I would not be surprised – and incidentally I am not opposed to this – if the agreements consequently took on the form of association agreements, or even if the Council clearly defined the legal basis of this mandate, which would determine the nature of these agreements. This is not an insignificant question, particularly insofar as it determines the European Parliament having more or less power to act with regard to the final content of the agreements, as the rapporteurs have made quite clear.
In any event, we should remember that the national parliaments in the Member States will still have to ratify these agreements, thereby giving them the necessary democratic legitimacy. Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge, no agreement between the European Union and third countries has to date failed to be signed because the legal framework implemented in a given case has been inadequate. We should not, therefore, create legal obstacles where they do not exist. Our greatest concern should be that we sign agreements that are effective and mutually advantageous to the Union, to the Member States and to the communities for which they are designed."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples