Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-07-07-Speech-4-159"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050707.25.4-159"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like firstly to express, on my own behalf and that of the Commission, our sincere condolences to the victims, and to the families of the victims, of the atrocious and barbarous acts that have taken place in London. I should also like to express my complete solidarity with the British authorities.
Mr Zingaretti, in particular, referred to the trade protection measures. If third countries subsidise their exports, there are responses available. In fact, the European Union has a whole arsenal of responses available to it. These include antidumping duties or anti-subsidy measures. For example, a week ago, the Commission opened an antidumping investigation in connection with certain types of Chinese and Indian shoes. The matter was discussed. We are not in the business of pious hopes in this House. I can assure you that these measures are taken very seriously by these two countries.
When it comes to counterfeiting, which is Mrs Muscardini’s concern and one that is shared by the Commission, the European Union has made progress. Since July 2004, a new arrangement is in force enabling companies to ask for the customs authorities to confiscate goods likely to be counterfeit. What we have here is a unified, free and simple Community procedure, intended as it is, in part, for small textile companies representing, as one MEP rightly said, 90% of the sector. However, does not greater efficiency demand, above all, that more be done to integrate the European customs authorities? A Community Customs Code has existed since 1992, but it is applied by 25 national customs authorities, which are sometimes difficult to coordinate. Fraudsters are often clever at exploiting such situations. A lot therefore remains to be done in this area.
On the subject of intellectual property, which is a very sensitive subject in the textile sector, recent years have been characterised by a veritable explosion in statistics.
I should like to point out that China’s accession to the WTO now imposes obligations upon it and also gives the European Union the option of taking more vigorous action if China does not comply with the obligations arising from its accession. I would therefore say to the representatives of the European left, who do not want the European Union to fund relocations, that we are in complete agreement. It must simply be pointed out that there is not a single clause along these lines in any preferential trade agreement. I do not think it right to suggest things that are untrue or to allow them to be said.
Mr Rull and Mr Karim too spoke about the industrial restructuring of the textile sector. I think that Mr Karim is right: European industry has been urgently awaiting a miracle from the Commission since the beginning of 2005 and the liberalisation of the Chinese textile sector. It has already been said, but I should like to state emphatically that liberalisation was decided upon ten years ago, in 1994. A number of Member States have also been able to prepare for it. The crisis in the textile sector is not, therefore, European in nature. It affects only those Member States that are unprepared.
It must also be pointed out that industrial restructuring measures are largely the responsibility of the Member States. In its sphere of competence, the Commission proposed to reserve a portion of the Structural Funds for those sectors undergoing industrial restructuring following crises just like that in the textile sector, a matter now being discussed by the Council.
In December 2004, the Commission – and, more specifically, Commissioner Potocnik – together with Euratex (that is to say, the European Apparel and Textile Organisation) announced an initiative known as the ‘European Textile Technology Platform’, one of whose purposes is to encourage technological innovation and so promote more upmarket products in the face of Chinese competition. It is true, as Mrs Lucas very rightly said, that the real victims of the liberalisation of the textile sector are the poorest countries, otherwise known as the Least Developed Countries, and that is precisely because they manufacture products with little technological content, such as cotton tee-shirts. Europe has the resources to go upmarket and to specialise in textile sectors. I am thinking of fabrics with very high technological content, in respect of which Chinese competition is more limited. Protection is, admittedly, necessary as a temporary measure, but innovation is surely the real solution.
I am sorry that this resolution has not been adopted from today for, on behalf of the Commission, I broadly share the approach proposed by it. I should like to make a few more comments. Mr Leichtfried and Mrs Toia say that these are good measures but that the Commission could have reacted more quickly. The Commission responded in five months, after having verified that harm was indeed being caused. Where the Chinese are concerned, there can be no question of imposing quotas lightly.
Mr Romagnoli, I should like to repeat what I have just said. I challenge you to say by what precise mechanism the Commission might encourage relocations. It is not true that it would do so.
Mrs Laperrouze welcomes the agreement, rightly I believe. Regarding the High Level Group, a plan for identifying trade restrictions was presented by the Commission to the High Level Group on 14 June. It was presented by more than one Commissioner, namely Mr Mandelson and Mr Verheugen, and Mrs Saïfi was also present.
Ladies and gentlemen, I note that, behind a few inevitable and no doubt necessary criticisms, the general tone of the speeches is fairly favourable to the Commission’s approach. That is already the case with the draft resolution, even if a number of people consider that still further steps could be taken, for example when it comes to social norms, protection against China or industrial restructuring.
Regarding Mr Tajani’s speech, in which he talked of marks of origin, the Commission is preparing a draft regulation to make such marks compulsory upon import. You must know, however, that the Member States are divided on this issue, a factor that is obviously slowing down progress on the matter.
Regarding the reciprocity mentioned in Mrs Lienemann’s speech, I agree, but this needs to be discussed within the WTO.
Allow me to conclude by drawing attention to two small considerations that are by no means irrelevant. An Airbus represents 20 million Chinese shirts. It is worth reflecting upon this and bearing in mind that trade is not a one-way affair. Trade operates in all directions and, by focusing upon one product in particular, one can sometimes significantly lose out on another product. That is something worth repeating.
I should also like to comment upon the highly ideological charge I heard made against liberal Europe, about which so many bad things are said. I just want to point out that it is liberal Europe that has made peace possible and that has led to the wealth that has been created no doubt being better distributed and shared out here in Europe than anywhere else. Collectivist or Marxist Europe, about which some people are clearly nostalgic, certainly cannot, in my view, offer the same track record as what is known as liberal Europe.
As for trade union freedom, which was talked about in the same breath, it is guaranteed everywhere in the liberal states. I have not yet seen it genuinely guaranteed in totalitarian states, even left-wing ones. I say this simply because of my own liberal affiliations and because, from time to time, it is worth repeating.
Even so, I should like to revisit a few of the concerns expressed. The agreement with China is of concern to, among others, Mr Silva Peneda, Mr Guerrero, Mr Caspary, Mr Allister and Mrs Martens. I would say that Mrs Martens found the right words to express this concern. Like the majority of those who follow these issues, she thinks that the agreement with the Chinese will allow European industry some breathing space between now and 2008 and that this agreement is therefore good in itself. I wish to point out that this agreement is to be applied strictly and that the quantities imported are strictly accounted for within the framework of genuine self-limitation quotas.
With regard to the safeguard clauses provided for by China’s act of accession to the WTO, it will be specified that the European Union has not formally relinquished these, but the agreement with the Chinese is obviously global and designed specifically to avert such conflict in administering the sector as might arise from the harsh measures constituted by these clauses. These clauses would therefore only be applied if this were really justified, something that does not seem to me to be the case, precisely because the agreement with China covers the most sensitive products, that is to say almost half of the Chinese textile sector liberalised in January 2005. Mr Allister who, I see, is generally well disposed towards this agreement, will appreciate that the management of Chinese trade thus put in place obviates the necessity for the anti-dumping measures that he was recommending.
Finally, I should like to reassure Mr Caspary that the agreement with China will enable volumes to be stabilised, with a reasonable annual rate of increase of 8% to 12%. It therefore protects European manufacturers but, until 2008, also stabilises importers’ stocks. Flexibility clauses are envisaged within the framework of the negotiations under way with the Chinese in order to mitigate the limitation measures, to the advantage of importers.
Allow me to say a few words about respect for social standards on the part of developing countries. I would say in reply to Mr Silva Peneda that, although the European Union and the Commission actively promote such standards, developing countries criticise us on this subject, interpreting our demands as a form of protectionism in disguise. Matters are therefore not always as simple as they appear. Developing countries constitute the vast majority of ILO members and reject the link between trade and social standards. However, the Commission is not giving up and is proposing systematically to introduce into any preferential free trade agreement negotiations a withdrawal of preferences clause in the event of non-compliance with these standards. It is also acting positively. For example, the Council followed its lead on 27 June 2005 after we had proposed making new trade concessions to Sri Lanka, because the latter had just ratified the ILO’s eight basic conventions. The policy is fairly clear: ban child labour in exchange for abolishing customs duties on exports to the European Union. It is a question of making a link between multilateral trade negotiations and social standards. We cannot say what will be decided in Hong Kong in December, but the Commission’s very strong attachment to this link can be pointed out right now. If he had been able to be present in the House this morning, my colleague in charge of trade, Peter Mandelson, would have certainly explained how, in Turin on 26 May 2005, he intervened along these lines within the framework of a meeting organised jointly with the ILO. In this area, as in others, many practical measures are possible. For example, serious thought is being given to a partnership and social dialogue structure with China where textiles are concerned.
I would return now to the European Union’s trade policy priorities by way of replying to Mr Belder, among others. Implicit in the draft resolution is the need to give priority to the Euro-Mediterranean zone, particularly in relation to Asia. The Commission largely shares this point of view. Developing trade between the two banks of the Mediterranean should help the development of this region and partly resolve the serious problems, such as immigration, that are common to the north and south of the area and that extend beyond the problems relating to textiles.
There are other priorities: Africa, in connection with which I would refer you to the G8, meeting today in Scotland; the Least Developed Countries; and the poor countries of Asia. The Commission therefore agrees with Mrs Saïfi on this point: a number of comparative advantages need to be maintained in favour of those to whom the European Union intends to give preference. That is why, for example, it very strongly supports putting in place the pan-Euro-Mediterranean cumulation of origin, which should be adopted by the Council this autumn. I would, moreover, take this opportunity to invite Parliament to help the Commission put pressure on the Council in order to speed up the adoption of the protocols in question.
Finally, it should be noted, on the question of trade preferences, that, since this year, the European Union has withdrawn most of its trade preferences from China. This negative priority is perfectly in keeping with the spirit of the draft resolution."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples