Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-10-14-Speech-4-032"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041014.3.4-032"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, this is not the very last time that I will appear before you because I will have the chance to see you again in plenary in October. Had this actually been the last time, I would have seen – in the combination of circumstances that sees Mr Moscovici in the chair – a sign, the like of which I receive from time to time.
Unusually for me, I will not be able to respond in detail to each of you individually, because I can only speak for a few minutes. I shall restrict myself to addressing the essential aspects, keeping it brief and to the point.
Mrs Martens asked me if the ‘everything but arms’ scheme is to be changed. No, it will not be changed, and there is no graduation in the ‘everything but arms’ scheme. She asked, as other speakers did, about the rates of use by the beneficiary countries of the Generalised System of Preferences. She is right. Let us simply be clear that, among the reasons why certain countries do not, in fact, have access to our market, even though they have the right to such access, are all of those factors that do not fall under the category of tariffs, such as those relating to sanitary and phytosanitary norms and the problems of standards, quality and certification. There will always, therefore, be a difference between theoretical and practical access, due to non-tariff-related issues, for which, unfortunately, we are unable to set up a specific scheme for developing countries. We are not about to set up a scheme for tolerance of antibiotics in prawns for the whole world, only later to set up a specific scheme that favours prawns from the developing world. Unfortunately, we cannot proceed in such a manner.
Mrs Castex suggests that I involve the social partners in cases where benefit from these preferences is linked to compliance with social clauses. We are already doing this, Mrs Castex, and we shall continue to do so. To give you an example, the inquiry that we are currently undertaking into respect for union rights in Belarus, which may lead the EU to remove the benefit of those preferences from that country, was triggered by a complaint from the European Trade Union Confederation. This is also, in fact, the basis for my reply to Mr Markov.
I was asked if the number of beneficiaries would be reviewed. The number of beneficiaries will, of course, be reviewed, and this review will be based on one criterion – that of market share. I said earlier, and I repeat, that the number of beneficiaries will scarcely be affected by this system. Let me state clearly that when we speak of graduation, we do not refer to one country and one product as being graduated, but to a country-product pair – country ‘x’, product ‘y’.
Mrs Lucas asked me again about the timetable. I feel that I have explained our constraints, in particular those arising from the India dispute. As regards rules of origin, which she emphasised, as did others, namely Mrs Van Lancker and Mrs Kinnock, let me simply say this: supposing we removed China, a major exporter of clothing and textiles, from the scheme and we authorised Sri Lanka, which exports clothing, to procure its textiles in China; if I have understood correctly, this is what Mrs Lucas would like us to do. If this were to happen, we would be handing back to China through the back door, if I may put it that way, the advantage in the clothing and textiles sector that we would be taking away through the front door. We must not, therefore, put ourselves into that kind of contradictory situation. If, however, Sri Lanka wishes to procure its textiles in the surrounding region, we are probably – I must check with my colleagues – open to this.
I have almost finished on this point. Mr Louis does not like the World Trade Organisation; that is his prerogative. What is more worrying is that he considers the EU’s trade policy as characterised by unbridled free trade. This is obviously an exaggeration. Furthermore, I did not hear that from the mouths of other Members of this House during this debate. I should like to pinpoint the one sole point in his speech on which he agrees with the Commission – which is not bad going, incidentally – namely that the GSP must be preserved. I would, in fact, go slightly further and say that it must be improved.
Mr Sturdy agrees on the link with technical assistance. Mrs Kinnock and Mrs Van Lancker want more details on the thresholds and on the lists of the conventions and the sanctions. Those details will be available on 20 October, when the Commission will make a decision on my proposal. Mrs Kinnock would like me to shed more light on the relationship between the economic partnership agreements and these unilateral schemes. They are two distinct systems; the function of the economic partnership agreements is to encourage regional integration within the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, whereas, for the moment, the GSP does not have that objective, other than through the rules of origin.
I have finished on that point, Mr President. I am delighted that, once again, Parliament has had the opportunity to hold a debate on trade policy one week before the Commission itself has debated the issue. This proves that, from the point of view of transparency, we have made some progress."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples