Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-10-14-Speech-4-021"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041014.3.4-021"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted that the two parliamentary committees have initiated this debate.
Since its signature nearly ten years ago, the Marrakesh Agreement has resulted in fundamental changes to the nature of the relations entered into by the European Union, and by France in particular, with their developing country partners. Today we have a new Commission communication presenting a project for reforming and improving the Generalised System of Preferences. It should firstly be noted that the Generalised System of Preferences has been a battlefield between two world views: on the one hand, that of a Europe – and more specifically of France – which is committed to its developing country partners and conscious of its responsibilities and historical ties, and, on the other hand, that of a Europe which believes that exposure to global free trade should be the only real means of economic and social development. I fear that this new Commission communication merely serves as a smoke screen to disguise the simple fact that it renounces our previous commitments in favour of those arising from our participation in the World Trade Organisation. This is what is euphemistically known as a WTO-compatible system.
In reality, and more generally, this House and the Council have allowed the Commission to pursue two contradictory policies at the same time, namely an external trade policy of absolute free trade, and a policy of providing development aid to privileged partners. If we did not wish to allow the WTO to dismantle the Lomé Convention systematically, instrument by instrument, the Council should have acted as a supervisor and recognised authority, in order to provide coherent definitions and a determined defence of clear and long-term strategies, including all external policy instruments, in broad fields of common interest such as development.
This fundamental contradiction affects all of the policies which we intend to pursue together. How can we ask our fishermen to reduce pressure on fish stocks, at the same time as signing trade agreements with countries which do not wish to agree to make the same efforts? How can we impose environmental standards, social constraints and solidarity commitments on our companies, while exposing them to a competition which bears none of these burdens? Finally, how can we ask our partners from the South to believe in the long-term commitment of the EU and its Member States to their development, if, with advantages that are now barely appreciable, we expose them, reform by reform, to the forces of the single global market? I am speaking on behalf of the French delegation of my group. We are in no way opposed to the market, and we believe in free enterprise, in initiative and in individual responsibility, but we also believe that the State should play its role as regulator and strategist, both to protect its citizens and in the interests of its poorest international partners, as in the absence of this the market is nothing but a jungle.
Given that the prosperity of our continent was mainly established in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries under relatively protected conditions, how can we demand of our partners from the South that they expose their nascent economies to the four winds? Maybe the young shoots of developing countries require assistance in some form from us on a provisional basis. Although admittedly imperfect, our GSP system must be kept in place. I also fear that, as in a great many other cases, the Commission proposal is not based on any impact study or evaluation of the system as a whole. I hope that this House will vote on a detailed proposal, but we must demand, ladies and gentlemen, that this only take place if we have been informed of the consequences which this reform will have."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples