Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-03-08-Speech-2-082"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050308.8.2-082"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, as draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Development, I should first of all like to thank Commissioner Mandelson for the words he has just spoken. I can very much identify, and indeed agree, with the different elements he listed. Trade and development cooperation are very closely interwoven.
The scheme of generalised tariff preferences – the subject of our debate today – is a prime example of this. The amount we spend via this scheme of trade benefits is higher than the total European budget for development cooperation. A review of the system was critical as it was simply being underused and the excessively complex structure did not comply with the rules of the WTO. It follows that a simplification, an improvement, can yield extra benefits, and this is very significant, certainly if the countries in question adhere to the international standards for good governance and working conditions. However, in order to make the system effective, the Commission must review the rules of origin promptly, because that will dictate whether we can actually make it more effective for the countries. It is of great importance for the benefits to be generous and for us not to try to reintroduce protectionism via the backdoor by excluding all kinds of products, as the Commissioner referred to a moment ago. We support the new scheme’s proposal for prompt implementation on 1 April for the countries affected by the tsunami, but we are also arguing in favour of a transitional period for the countries that are not yet ready. It is also a question of trust.
Finally, I should like to mention the relationship between the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) and the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), about which the European Commission is currently negotiating with the ACP countries. As the Commissioner is aware, the trade agreements are not uncontroversial; they are reported to involve trade liberalisation that is too rapid and too rigorous. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the ACP countries and, above all, those that are not among the least developed countries, should have alternatives if they do not want to join the EPAs. The review in 2008 of the GSP plus could prove to be a sound alternative for this. I would advise the Commissioner to really get down to business in this respect."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples