Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-29-Speech-4-046"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050929.5.4-046"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the subject is ‘Prospects for Trade Relations’ and Mrs Lucas began by asking for support for her report. She will have mine. If we look at how things have developed, we find that both the European Union and China have become each other’s second biggest trading partner. What has changed?
A few years ago, the trade surplus was still on the European Union’s side and now it is on the Chinese side. I am convinced it will remain that way for the next few decades. There are a number of unusual things about China. It has an enormous internal market; at the same time, it has a great capacity for labour-intensive production and it is able to take full advantage of that because it has very low wage levels. It also has high-tech production. Labour-intensive production is increasingly moving away from many Member States of the European Union even though we have a very high level of productivity, which is a reason why we actually could keep it. At the same time, if we look at the volume of trade we can see that European industry has benefited tremendously from exporting to China.
Today, we have been discussing the situation as regards textiles. The European Union used to earn billions from the export of textile machinery. If you look at today’s export statistics, you can see how many steel works are exported, how many pressing tools for the motor industry, how many aluminium smelters for making bicycles. It is perfectly clear that we will have the same problem in these industries in two or three years’ time.
The draft Constitutional Treaty spoke of an open market economy with free competition. What we now have in the European Union in textiles is a result of that. It is the result of an open, unprotected market economy with free competition. That is why a majority of the French rejected it.
I believe we need a social market economy with fair competition. That is something different. If we are constantly saying that production in China is not up to European standards, that is correct. It would be extremely easy, however, to get a rule laid down in the WTO to the effect that countries that fail to comply with ILO standards cannot export or that their goods will not be imported. If anyone fails to comply properly with ILO occupational safety standards, his goods cannot be exported. Anyone who uses chemicals that are banned worldwide or in most countries is not allowed to export. Then we would immediately have a competition that was driving things upwards because producers would be forced to bring in better social, environmental and industrial standards.
I believe that is the right way forward. Anyone who believes the European Union can survive in the long term simply by always making the sweeping statement that we must make more high-tech products is failing to recognise that China produces far more highly qualified college and university graduates every year than the entire European Union. That cannot be the way either. We must not delay in doing what we are always talking about. We must invest much more in education. If you look at the Member States’ budgets, however, you will see that they are not doing that either."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples