Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-01-16-Speech-1-142"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060116.17.1-142"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to take as my starting point the point just made by Mr Sturdy. You, Commissioner, asked what you should do in terms of ongoing evaluation, and what we would like you to consider.
Mr Sturdy is, I think, right; we certainly should give consideration in future to whether the single undertaking approach will always be the right one. Its continued use probably makes sense, but I strongly suspect that the future of the WTO will depend on other methods being found, on a more flexible outlook that will probably involve allowing issues to be negotiated in parallel and the use of a flexible and rolling work plan. How all that will fit into this round is something I leave to you and your wisdom.
Following on from this is another consideration that you should bear in mind. This House has always maintained – indeed, I myself drafted a report on the subject some years ago – that we should take note of the bilateral rounds too. My own group consistently attaches a great deal of importance to the multilateral negotiating round and I am very much in favour of it, but it must nevertheless be clear to us that bilateral negotiations are of value too. Now for my question: while the old Commission always refused to enter into bilateral agreements with Asia, have you, Commissioner, come to see things differently? Would you like to set other priorities for work in this area?
Thirdly, I have just returned from Mexico, where, I was surprised to learn, a high degree of importance is attached to the services sector and to investments in infrastructure, although I did get the impression that there was no very precise understanding of what the Commission would like to do and of what we would like to do in the multilateral rounds on services. Perhaps you could find something to say about that.
My fourth point has to do with standards. I am firmly persuaded of the need for us to get back to discussing standards in the multilateral round more than anywhere else. The more participants, the more important that will become. The more problematic international competition becomes, the more pressing an issue this will be. What I would like to know is whether you are thinking in terms of a new initiative.
Finally, framework programmes for research are under discussion, and many Members have raised one point that will become important where agriculture is concerned. Where do you stand on the question as to whether we should invest more in agricultural and structural research? What line do you take on research into bioethanol?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples