Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-10-14-Speech-4-016"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041014.3.4-016"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, it has already been stated that the Generalised System of Preferences offers trade benefits to the countries that are most in need of them. In the European Union, we have established millennium objectives for development and have committed to those. They are, above all, focused on fighting poverty. The economic development is a key condition in this respect, and so we think it is upon this that the revision should focus. It is unfortunate that we need to do this under time pressure now that the complaint lodged by India with the WTO has been declared founded.
Our group is of the opinion – one fortunately shared by the Commissioner – that, firstly, the poorest countries should not become poorer still. In those cases where preferences have been eroded by lowering the rates for most-favoured nations, we would therefore ask the Commission to consider what else could be done. Secondly, we think that the system of graduation must meet its objective that the only countries or sectors to be excluded should be those that are already operating sufficiently competitively within the market and thus no longer need the GSP. Also, it is our view that good governance should certainly be given a place in the new GSP+. Finally, revision should also mean that the countries for which the GSP+ is specifically designed could make more use of it. What should become the most important instrument is being used only for 52%, or 55%, as the Commissioner stated a moment ago. This increase is positive, but the result is not yet satisfactory.
I have two questions for the Commission. The idea behind the GSP’s revision is sound and clear; the intention is to create a simpler, more transparent and more objective system, and here, it goes without saying, we are completely behind the Commission. What is less clear is how exactly this can be achieved. For example, how does the Commission aim to prevent the planned GSP+ regulation, which admittedly will become one single regulation, from not becoming too complex in terms of implementation, adherence and control so that there is in practice too little of the proposed simplification and transparency? The other question, which has already been raised, concerns assessment. According to the communication, there is no assessment, or no sound assessment at any rate, a statement denied by both Mr Mandelson and Mr Lamy. If this assessment is available, could Parliament have this without delay? Thank you."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples