Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-03-Speech-2-141"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-06-03"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Vote (continuation)2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030603.5.2-141"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-06-03-Speech-2-1422
lpv:speaker	lp:Georges Berthu2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation to the European Economic Area Joint Parliamentary Committee (EEA) (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 substitute; ECON (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; NA (2001-01-31--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Mouvement pour la France (2000-11-23--2004-07-19)3 member; AFCO (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with Canada (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	". We voted against the Mann report because it calls for the complete ‘communitisation’ of the European Union’s trade policy, which would be harmful, as I said in yesterday’s debate. But we also reject this report because of the trade strategy it advocates, which is in our view mistaken on at least two important points. Firstly, it says quite clearly that the objective of opening up to international trade is world integration, including ‘regulatory convergence’. But while it is possible to support the idea of increasing trade to the benefit of all, it should also be added – which the report fails to do – that every country, or every region, has the right to protect its model of society. Secondly, it is much too indulgent towards the European Union’s trade policy, in particular its all-out adoption of free trade areas. Such areas are useful if they reflect a desire for controlled opening. But in reality Europe has so many of them and they overlap so much that no one knows what their real effects are and they are causing us to lose control over our trade relations."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph