Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-14-Speech-3-216"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011114.10.3-216"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would protest about the fact that the Council is not represented here today in order to provide us with the legal evaluation we requested. It is unacceptable that we, as a Parliament, do not have access to the same information as the Council. It is unacceptable discrimination between the two institutions. I should like to have seen us in Parliament postponing the debate on the proposal until we had received the Council’s legal evaluation. Unfortunately, that is not what the big two political groups wanted. The usual demand for transparency is transparently not so important when money is at stake and national interests to be looked after.
I have, however, received an answer from the Commission regarding the regulation’s compliance with the WTO rules. The Commission sees no problems. There, I disagree. The Commission says that the regulation will not have any negative effect on third countries. That is incorrect. In future, a Japanese shipyard, for example, will compete with European shipyards that receive State aid. In that way, the regulation will have a negative effect on third countries, for example Japan. The Commission also says that the proposed regulation cannot be regarded as biased action by the EU against South Korea, something that would be contrary to the WTO regulations. The regulation states quite specifically that European shipyards can only receive State aid if they are in direct competition with Korean shipyards. Korea is mentioned specifically, then. A more biased course of action cannot be imagined.
With this proposal, we, in the EU, are doing something that is downright illegal. I urge that what was adopted in Parliament’s committee be rejected, just as I should ideally like to see the Commission withdraw its proposal and instead concentrate on taking WTO proceedings against the Koreans. What is the Commission trying to do with all these amendments to extend the period of the regulation and to increase the number of types of ship that are eligible for aid? Will the Commission confirm that it will on no account comply with Parliament’s requests today? Will the Commission confirm or deny that it has plans to table an altered proposal that includes LNG tankers? I very much hope that the Commission will answer these questions."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples