Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-02-Speech-2-202"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030902.9.2-202"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I shall take these questions one by one and in short order. Mr Rübig is, I think, right to say that what is at stake in these negotiations is a matter of importance to small and medium-sized enterprises. To say that is to make in an elegant way the point that it is not just the big multinationals that have an interest in the multilateral trade system making balanced progress.
Geographical descriptions are a complicated subject, and I will briefly reiterate the EU’s negotiating objectives in this area. As regards wines and spirits first of all, we would welcome the WTO’s drawing up of a register, which would be binding in character. We would also welcome the extension of a number of arrangements protecting geographical descriptions for wines and spirits to cover also other agricultural and food products. Finally, we would welcome, as is only natural, the recovery of a number of geographical descriptions, a list of which we have drawn up under the auspices of Commissioner Fischler, which are of importance to our farmers, but still usurped in other parts of the world.
Mrs McNally reiterated the Group of the Party of European Socialists’ position on investment. I will say something about that in responding to Mrs Lucas. How do we reconcile our desire for the WTO to focus on a multilateral accord on a number of principles governing investment, and our aspirations in terms of development? For a start, we see investment as an important factor in development, believing that a number of simple basic rules on such things as transparency and the predictability of investment schemes, would make an important contribution to investment; secondly, we are prepared to take on board in these negotiations certain of the developing countries’ concerns, which have been expressed from time to time and which boil down to the view that such rules would diminish their political sovereignty. We are willing to respond to this by putting forward a draft comprising a number of general rules that developing countries might adopt, should they wish to do so, without those not wishing to do so being obliged to be bound by them. In this way, a number of objections can be taken on board.
I would, by the way, remind Mrs McNally and Mrs Lucas that the developing countries are divided on this issue, with some being in favour and others not, and that this is true, moreover, of a number of other subjects. Within the WTO, there is no Northern front on the issues as a whole, nor is there a Southern front on other matters.
On this point, I would simply remind Mrs Lucas that these four subjects – investment, business facilitation, transparency in public purchasing and competition – form part of the negotiating programme drawn up at Doha, it being understood that we have to come to an agreement on how negotiations are to be conducted. This is also true of the other subjects, such as agricultural issues or industrial tariffs.
Mr Olsson is right to say that agriculture is not, either, an issue on which, within the WTO, an uncompetitive and protectionist North is at loggerheads with a competitive and liberalising South. It is enough to consider the position of Brazil in comparison with that of India, that of Africa alongside that of Indonesia or Thailand, to be made immediately aware that things are not like that. In response to Mrs Frahm, I would say that our thinking is, in this discussion, pretty clear. For a start, we cannot treat agricultural production as a unity, as we tend to do with tyres, socks, shirts or cars. The specific characteristics of agricultural production mean that we Europeans have a number of reasons for not being in favour of the complete deregulation of agricultural markets, and so we seek to retain state intervention in favour of agriculture. That having been said, the manner in which the state intervenes has to be adapted in such a way as to do away with some of the obstacles they presented to the agricultural policies of the countries in the developing world. That is what we did in 1992, 1999, and 2003, and it is right to give Commissioner Fischler, who is sitting beside me this evening, the credit for the efforts made on these various occasions, when we adapted our common agricultural policy to international trade, for the particular benefit of developing countries. We will carry on down this road. We have committed ourselves to negotiating towards further reductions in our national subsidies in so far as they hamper trade, to improve our access to the market, to reduce our export subsidies. We will do this primarily for the benefit of the developing countries. Such is the basis on which the EU will be negotiating.
My final point is in response to Mrs Frahm. There is in fact a problem with the relationship between respect for fundamental rights and the rules of international trade, just as there is with the rules of international trade and international accords on the environment, or in the case of how the rules of trade and public health concerns relate to one another. As regards public health, the World Trade Organisation has just decided in favour of access to generic medicines. Among the negotiations, the programme for which was adopted at Doha, there are talks on the relationship between the rules on the environment and those on trade. In contrast, there are no negotiations on the relationship between workers’ basic rights, in particular the International Labour Organisation’s five basic conventions, and the rules of international trade, as we have not managed to get our point of view accepted. This was among our negotiating objectives in Doha. On this point, we came up against the stonewalling of the United States and the developing countries. They did not want it, they still do not, and up to now, the EU’s position, valuable though it is – and I have always energetically defended it because I think it the right one – has gained no ground against the position of the developing countries and the United States. We are dealing here with a balance of power, one which, for the present, we have not managed to turn around in our favour."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples