Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-03-14-Speech-4-141"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020314.6.4-141"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
We can only regret the fact that the United States has introduced a tax on steel imports, at the expense of European interests and which apparently violates WTO rules. Nonetheless, we were also alarmed by the assured and clear conscience displayed by Commissioner Lamy yesterday in the House, when he gave us a lecture on American free-market morale. We must point out a few realities that have been forgotten, and which should lead to greater discretion being shown.
1- First of all, the tax introduced by the US, which is likely to be of up to 30%, closely corresponds to the depreciation of the euro since its introduction, which certainly imposes monetary dumping on our trade partners. Naturally, no one in Europe mentions this because, however unexpected it may be, this depreciation favours us commercially. The fact remains that it is the source of serious prejudice to our partners. Admittedly, the United States hoped for the ‘strong dollar’, but equally, they did not want an overly powerful dollar, which seriously punishes their own industries.
2- In the steel dispute, the United States has cited the need for safeguard measures to avoid domestic problems. In this case, they may well be disregarding the WTO rules that they themselves adopted, and by which they find themselves trapped. The fact remains, however, that they pose a real problem. Instead of trying to triumph over them, should they not instead jump at the opportunity, and propose to consider the legitimate exceptions to a free trade doctrine, for the developed countries, and even more so for the under-developed countries? Europe, in particular, would do well to consider this issue if it wants, in future, to save its agricultural model.
In this respect, one might also wonder whether Commissioner Lamy’s thundering declarations, attacking the ‘unilateralism’ of the American measures, will, in future, end up reinforcing (or are actually designed to reinforce) the multilateral approach of a simplistic free trade doctrine, as adopted at the end of the Uruguay Round through the manipulation of public opinion. And we will in future realise that these reinforced approaches are, as an indirect consequence, holding us prisoner on other subjects that are vital for us, such as agriculture. The manipulation goes on."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples