Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-05-09-Speech-1-132"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050509.18.1-132"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would very much like to pick up on a number of points already mentioned by both Dr Tannock and Mr Moreno Sánchez, and also by you, Commissioner. In both these problematic processes – the Mercosur negotiations and the question of how these can rationally be tied in with the ongoing WTO negotiations – we need to make sensible strategic plans, particularly as regards the timetable.
Bearing in mind the difficulties that we came up against in the negotiations last year and the fact that neither we nor the Commission have yet managed to resolve them, I do wonder how you think you will manage, by the end of the year, to organise a proper timetable and to extract more substantial concessions than have been made so far. As Mr Moreno Sánchez has already said: how, in fact, do you intend to establish a link between these negotiations, not least in terms of the resources at your disposal? I think both sets of negotiations are enormously demanding and complex, and the whole business strikes me as very difficult. Hence the question as to whether it might perhaps be more intelligent and more rational to provide for more time and more leeway in the negotiations, particularly in view of Dr Tannock’s argument that there are, quite simply, a lot of political power games being played here and that the negotiations between Brazil and Argentina are very complicated indeed, not to mention those with the United States.
I think, then, that the big issue is whether we actually have to keep to the timetable that has been laid down, or whether it might be smarter to consider another one. My second question has to do with the texts. I have read that you want to organise a major round of talks with ministers, which will then achieve a breakthrough. That is a good way of going about it; it is always important to get the backing of political leaders.
It seems to me, though, that – rather as with negotiations involving the United States and the rest of the world – you, the Commission, are concentrating too much on governments and very often ignoring the parliaments. That is something we, over and over again, have had cause to deplore. Here, too, it might be appropriate to make use of the bodies that we have for this purpose – after all, this House does cooperate with those in the Mercosur countries. Our giving political back-up may perhaps seem difficult, but why should it not be given consideration as a means of stimulating greater political willingness, and also to send the message to the political leadership in each country that parliamentarians want to support negotiations of this sort?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples