Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-07-06-Speech-4-193"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060706.30.4-193"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to start by thanking Commissioner Mandelson for the spirit of openness he showed the four of us who made up Parliament’s delegation in Geneva last weekend. It was very rewarding and I think that we cooperated very well. There is an intrinsic value in us obtaining a new WTO agreement. Doing so requires confidence, both in the WTO and in multilateralism itself. It is, after all, the only system that has delivered real liberalisations of world trade.
I do believe, however, that we are right to demand more than just an agreement from all the parties. We deserve an ambitious agreement, an agreement that provides greater market access for both agricultural products and industrial goods for everyone, both in industrialised countries and in developing countries, and one that does not leave out services. This is a crucial matter if poor countries are to develop, but also if our own European companies are to have access to new markets. In the long term, no one would gain from a ‘Doha light’ deal or a complete failure of the Doha Round. I therefore do not believe that there is any justification for the entrenched positions that we see many of the parties taking up at the moment.
It is easy to see the problems with the negotiations. The economic reality should be enough to convince all the parties to make that little bit of extra effort, particularly the EU-Brazil-USA triangle that was so much in the spotlight over the weekend in Geneva. All of these countries have strong practical reasons to take a further step. In the USA, for example, even the most dogmatic advocates of agricultural protectionism should be able to see that it is better to give up their agricultural subsidies in the course of the negotiations and receive market access to key regions in exchange, rather than to be forced to give them up by a dispute settlement body following a breakdown of the talks, and then receive nothing at all in exchange. The sugar panel that came down against us and made us reform our subsidies to sugar producers ought to have given us the same insight.
The EU should also understand that it is absurd to fail to secure much more important market openings for industrial goods and services as a result of clinging on to an agricultural subsidy that we all know is fundamentally untenable. It is therefore pleasing that the Commission appears to have come closer to meeting the demand from the G20, the group of advanced developing countries, to reduce the high levels of customs duties on agricultural products. This is crucial if we are to salvage the prospects of achieving an agreement. We must now ensure that we apply a flexible approach only in connection with genuinely vulnerable products and not in order to satisfy those special interests with the loudest voices. If anyone should understand the importance of trade without customs and barriers then it should be us, here in Europe. We, who see the benefit of it every day through the internal market."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples