Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-05-11-Speech-3-282"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050511.21.3-282"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would just like to raise a couple of points that need to be borne in mind when considering this report, which is, after all, the first to be presented by the Committee this year. We will then, in the second half of the year, produce a second one to follow, observe and comment on the Commission’s deliberations and negotiations.
As far as both the Committee and my group are concerned, the question to which it gives rise is what can be done, firstly to ensure that we are actually being helpful, in a supportive way, in bringing about a positive result in Hong Kong – even though there will be no final conclusion, a positive result would be nice in any case – so that negotiations can then be continued on a sound footing; secondly, also in order to ensure that the great claim we make in the title of ‘development round’ is justified by reality; and, thirdly, to ensure that the European Union’s interests are defended.
This is of course a very complex business when one bears in mind that the outcome of Cancún was not exactly a very good one, that we have had a very difficult start and that the negotiations are currently looking rather shaky. There is also the problem of the countries with emerging economies, which are fighting to be allowed to take up a leading, global role in the world. That is very much apparent from the example of China – about which we will have a debate tomorrow – but also from Brazil and, of course, from India. All this adds up to a very difficult and complex situation.
There is another aspect to which we have to give consideration. I would ask you, Commissioner, to revisit the subject of how in fact this House, the Committee on International Trade and yourself are to relate to one another in the course of this year. If the new treaty were already in place, Parliament would have a very great deal more power, with more direct machinery for consultation. Our mechanisms are very good and long-established, but they are all somewhat informal in nature.
At the same time, though, it is also the case that the public would like to see us more directly involved, with more power and more rights in a process involving negotiations on agriculture and services sectors. These are very sensitive areas, debate on which can be very vigorous, and on which there are no ready-made and unambiguous positions, whether in our group, in this House or among the public at large.
How, then, can we ensure that, in the course of this year, we can organise this critical process involving the Commission, the Committee and Parliament in such a way that the result is fruitful cooperation over and above what we have already established, and including the critical areas I have mentioned?
If you actually have to make changes to the negotiations, or changes to your plans – and you can rest assured, Commissioner, that you will have to deal with these things – then how can it be guaranteed that cooperation will be so close that we will really be able to discharge the responsibility placed upon us by the public?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples