Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-29-Speech-4-011"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050929.3.4-011"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spokenAs | |
lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, I have been trying to figure out for some time why people have not seen the disturbing developments of textile dumping from China coming any sooner, even though these developments could be clearly deduced from the product categories that were liberalised before.
I hope you will not mind me saying this, but the measures that were taken on 5 September to eliminate the quotas, particularly those on the textile products that were blocked in European ports, are reminiscent of a game of panic football.
It is obvious that the memorandum of understanding, which Commissioner Mandelson brokered with China in June, and which entailed the imposition of quantitative import restrictions on ten product categories, was very badly prepared. How else can we explain why less than two months later, the quota for 2005 has already been used up? The blocked goods were hurriedly cleared, and the June agreement ignored, with all the confusion that this entailed for producers, traders, buyers and consumers in the textile industry.
I have a few very concrete questions, Commissioner. Where do we go from here? How can the existing uncertainty and confusion be dispelled in an industry that is struggling as it is? How do people envisage the further implementation of June’s memorandum of understanding? How will imports from China be monitored in the coming months? And what if, within a few weeks’ time, another load of clothing is stuck in European ports? And what about the quotas laid down for subsequent years?
As you can see, the latest agreement with China clearly produces far more questions than it answers, and I fear, Commissioner, that the Commission does not have those answers either. I hope you can convince me otherwise."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples