Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-11-30-Speech-3-062"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051130.10.3-062"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Madam President, the remark with which I agree most came from the honourable Member who said that the Commissioner certainly does not have an easy job in knitting together the interests, views and policies of 25 Member States and then fitting those 25 views into the 149 WTO members – minus of course we 25.
Lastly, on the subject of sugar, I think that Mrs Kinnock was right in her description of the anger amongst ACP countries. There is indeed a virtual EUR 40 million offer on the table and I was not right in saying, as I had been advised this morning, that this figure had been agreed with ACP countries. There is certainly a marked imbalance between what is on offer in the sugar action programme to ACP countries and what we are offering to our domestic sugar producers. Before we reach final conclusions on this, we need to think through the implications of what we are offering. But clearly, on the question of budgetary allocation, we look to the Council and Parliament, as there are conflicting views and voices in this matter in both the Council and Parliament.
In conclusion, as far as our transparency with the European Parliament in Hong Kong is concerned, we will keep in close touch with the European Parliament Members who are there. They will participate at meetings at the interparliamentary conference that will take place in Hong Kong. I look forward to regular daily contact with parliamentarians, so that together we get this meeting right.
One thing I am sure about in my approach to Hong Kong and in the approach to the round as a whole, is that I have an obligation to do what is right in the long term, rather than what will get me cheers in the short term. I have found in my time in this job that it is very easy to play to a gallery. It is very easy to mouth the slogans; to say the things that will please the people you are talking to; to get them to champion you and give you all the cheers in the world. But when I say what is right in the long term, rather than what will get me praise in the short term, I mean: what is right for the global economy as a whole? What is right for multilateralism and multilateral processes and institutions? What is right not just for us in Europe, but for developing countries? There are very many different sorts, sizes and states of development in developing countries, as I am finding out.
There is also considerable public interest in this round. I am grateful to Bob Geldof for giving out my email address, which has now clocked up something approaching 100 000 messages from members of the public wishing me well at Hong Kong. I am sure that he did so in the best possible spirit. I know that those who have been speaking this afternoon speak for and reflect that public opinion. I greatly welcome and value the joint parliamentary resolution on the Doha Round which has been put together. I take it as a strong signal of support for the Commission and my approach in the round. I have always welcomed the guidance and wisdom of the European Parliament and will continue to do so at Hong Kong and beyond.
I am sorry that my fellow countryman, Mr Farage, has not remained in the Chamber. Well, he has a very pressing diary with many engagements. Unfortunately, in his hatred of all things European, he got slightly carried away with his description and praise of the US agricultural offer that has been tabled. At first sight, the US market access offer is indeed ambitious. But it also tactical and highly unrealistic, as I suspect they know. On domestic support, the US offer – which I strongly welcomed at the time and continue to do so – is far from being as ambitious as it seemed. It presents no real cuts in actual levels of spending. It brings down the
of spending, but that is not, of course, quite the same thing. When it comes to its main domestic support programme, its counter cyclical payments, those remain untouched by the proposals that the United States has tabled.
On export competition the United States is very ambitious: very ambitious with our export subsidies, not quite so ambitious when it comes to its own export credits and its own food aid. However, I am sure it is only a matter of time before the US offer is improved and I look forward to that negotiation.
Agriculture, however, is very important to get right in this round. The Uruguay Round made limited inroads into agricultural protection. Inevitably, therefore, agriculture is a focus of the Doha Round. But let us not overlook the fact that the biggest welfare gains for all developing countries will come from liberalisation, not of agriculture, but in industrial goods, which account for 75% of developing countries’ trade and most of the tariffs that they pay. That is why this must not be an agriculture-only round. It must be balanced.
Mr Désir was right about agricultural liberalisation. Of course agricultural liberalisation will benefit some developing countries. The highly competitive agricultural exporters in the developing world, like Brazil and Argentina, are the developing countries that will be the chief beneficiaries. But the biggest winners in most agricultural liberalisation scenarios would be in the developed world, not the developing world, including large agricultural exporters such as Australia and New Zealand. That is not me speaking, that is the World Bank speaking in its recent publication.
Let me just make two last points about non-agricultural market access and services. In NAMA I want to give an assurance to honourable Members that we are certainly not asking from developing countries what we are prepared to do for and give ourselves. The principle of less than full reciprocity is important; it means commitments according to capacity and we shall certainly uphold that.
On services, the EU does not impose trade liberalisation on developing countries. We offer a free choice of sectors for developing countries. There is no pressure to open sectors such as education, health or water, although, in the case of water, I think many would benefit from such an advance. It is simply not the case that we are imposing overnight liberalisation; transition periods for developing countries would be of their own choice. We will not be proposing liberalisation of audiovisual services."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"ceilings"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples