Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-03-22-Speech-3-213"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060322.16.3-213"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Ladies and gentlemen, I agree with some of the points that have been made. As regards the apparent lack of information coming from the Commission, the Commission is, of course, willing to provide all the information it has available. Perhaps you feel that there is too little information. I shall see to it, for my own part in any case, that I give you all the information that I have.
In conclusion, I understand all your misgivings and anxieties. I am prepared – and I think that this is really very important – to have an exchange of views with you, including about all the supporting measures. I am looking for all the creativity of which you are capable and I am completely open on these questions, without any preconceptions. In any case, I assure you that I am more than ready to continue to look for the best possible solutions for supporting developing countries within the context of the EPAs.
With regard to the need to have large sums of money available, if extra money is needed, the Member States will have to provide it. You know very well the amounts available from the European Development Fund: I have only the money that is allocated to me.
With regard to Mrs Kinnock’s speech, I should like there to be no misunderstanding. When I spoke about an ‘academic’ debate on the alternatives, this was not intended to be impertinent. In fact, it is possible to make alternative proposals to those who do not wish to negotiate, but, as matters stand at present, they are, as you well know, Mrs Kinnock, all negotiating. The word was perhaps ill chosen, but starting a debate on the alternatives when they are all already negotiating does not seem very useful to me.
I should like to say to you that I am fairly broadly in agreement with the other comments you have made. Thus, I agree with your comments concerning access to the market, but you have to admit too that access to the market is not everything. Our experience of 50 years of liberalisation clearly shows that it is not enough and that there is a whole list of other factors to consider. You will find none more convinced than I of the fact that we must focus on the benefits of development. I am, therefore, completely in agreement with this principle.
Regarding production problems, it is clear that production is one of the areas in which we can most usefully provide support to the countries in question. It is at this level that one can provide the necessary funding for technical or technological upgrading, for technology transfer, for product quality, in short to finance the added value so necessary for access to the market.
I agree with you in recognising that the European Union must not impose diktats. That would not correspond at all either with my convictions or with the idea I have of development. There is a negotiation and, in a negotiation, each partner puts forward his arguments. There is no diktat in that. I am also in agreement with Mrs Martens when she says that the timescale must be realistic. I completely agree that it is necessary to safeguard access to water, to energy and to a whole range of essential goods. I share your views on this matter completely and I am extremely doubtful about the idea of liberalising these sectors.
Mrs Kinnock, on the question of the dismissal of the secretary that I am said to have called for, firstly, I do not have the power to dismiss the secretary concerned and, secondly, I have not called for anyone to be dismissed. What is true – because I am anxious to take full responsibility for what I have done – is that, in answer to an appeal from the secretary of CAEMC, the Central African Economic and Monetary Community, I simply said that I did not agree with granting a request for extra money for someone who has done nothing, and I can vouch for the fact that he has done nothing. I am, moreover, not the only person to complain about the fact. To justify himself, he said that he had no right of injunction in relation to Member States. The work that should have been done was not done. We do not receive the documents in proof that we ask for. There is a problem about transparency in his management. In these circumstances, I feel that it is part of my job to point out some of the basic principles of governance, especially when we are concerned with a request concerning funding from the Commission. I acknowledge, therefore, what I did, but I never called for the dismissal of anybody and, in any case, I do not have the power to do so.
To sum up, I shall say that the package, in the negotiation, must be comprehensive and coherent. Peter Mandelson negotiates the EPAs, and I have a supporting role. We work in tandem, therefore. My starting point is, of course, development and, more specifically, economic development as the driving force for growth. I would point out, moreover, that countries have agendas for the fight against poverty, which include this aspect. The regions covered by economic integration agendas are asking us to support them, which we are doing. This integration involves an aspect of commercial liberalisation between them; we support this, and the EPAs support this demand for regional integration.
I can see that some of your fears are justified, but I can assure you, as far as I am concerned at least, that the development aspect will be a priority. It is on this aspect that the negotiations will focus, and the support measures will have to make possible, according to the pace that these countries are capable of maintaining, an upgrading that should give them, in the long run, much easier access not only to regional integrated markets but also to the world market."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples