Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-03-14-Speech-2-186"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-03-14"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:State of the European footwear sector one year after liberalisation (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"el"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060314.24.2-186"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-03-14-Speech-2-1872
lpv:speaker	lp:Georgios Papastamkos2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP-ED (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; INTA (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (2004-09-22--2007-01-17)3 substitute; AFCO (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 chair; Delegation to the EU-Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-21--2007-01-17)3 unknown; Nea Dimokratia (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I belong to those who support a multilateral, balanced, free world trade system with institutional and political consistency. I mean a system based on even stricter rules, on stronger institutions, on more transparent and democratic procedures. The increase in imports of leather shoes of up to 500% in 2005, a percentage which Mr Baron Crespo raised to 900%, is not just the product of liberalisation and that must be understood. It is the product of unfair practices in violation of the rules of international trade on the part of China and Vietnam, on the part of two emerging economies. As other Members said, we lost thousands of jobs and hundreds of productive units disappeared in the European textile industry yesterday and today it will be the shoe industry. The European Union needs to send a clear message, as you intimated Commissioner, and we are all with you in this message. We are behind you. Yes to competition, no to its evident or concealed distortion. The anti-dumping duties – and this should be understood – are not a protective measure; they are a measure of legal commercial defence and, if this measure is to be effective, the duties must be proportionate to the degree of dumping. To all those who use the better price argument against the imposition of duties, I would counter with the following question: have consumers benefited from the reduction in import prices following liberalisation? My personal opinion is that the few suppliers of products from China and Vietnam have benefited. The Commission should organise its institutional attack, an attack of systematic convergence and effective protection of intellectual and industrial property, an attack against ecological and social dumping, against opaque and unfair practices and state interventions. Otherwise, the accumulation of experiences of violation of the rules of international trade, with the Union reacting after the event, may jeopardise the confidence of European citizens in the fundamental principle of the liberalisation of the world trade system."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph