Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-13-Speech-2-150"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010313.11.2-150"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
In the end I voted against the Schwaiger report despite its good qualities, because the debate we held yesterday, and in particular Commissioner Lamy's replies to my three questions, left me very dissatisfied.
In reply to my first question – and is it not dangerous to negotiate the Built-In Agenda separately? – Commissioner Lamy said that the ongoing negotiations in Geneva on agricultural trade and trade in services are not really negotiations but just preparatory talks. Perhaps that distinction is valid from an abstract point of view, but in practice I do not think it holds water.
The Commission's reply to my second question – should we not redefine the negotiating mandate in the light of the trend of events and public opinion? – was negative: it stated that the Commission would stick to the mandate defined at the time of Agenda 2000. In any case, the European Parliament has just underpinned that position by explicitly rejecting two amendments calling for the Blair House Agreement to be renegotiated.
In his reply to my third question – before opening new negotiations, should we not first define more clearly how the negotiators are to be monitored? – Commissioner Lamy referred mainly to the framework agreement between the European Parliament and the Commission. That is certainly a matter of some significance, but basically my question concerned scrutiny by the Council, which sets the Commission's negotiating objectives, and by the national parliaments, which in my view have the final say. Confusion continues to prevail with regard to these aspects.
I very much regret that the Protocol, which was still part of the preliminary draft for Nice in November, was not incorporated, at least the part concerning scrutiny of the way negotiations are conducted at the WTO. It stated that the Presidency and the Member States may accompany the Commission to WTO meetings, that the Commission must forward all the documents at its disposal without delay, that it has a binding obligation to respond to the wishes of a Member State to open a consultation procedure, that the common position upheld by the Commission is established by the Council, and that the Council may at all times address negotiating directives to the Commission. I believe it is essential to observe these rules, in one form or another, in order to ensure proper scrutiny of the WTO negotiations."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples