Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-07-06-Speech-4-207"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060706.31.4-207"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the compulsory origin marking proposed by the Commission must be supported because it has a dual purpose: to make Europeans, as consumers, better informed and to optimise the industrial system of those European countries that are investing a large amount of resources in innovation, with the aim of transforming their production apparatus into something of excellence.
We must strive for equal rules with those trade areas – China, the US, Canada, Japan – that have already introduced origin marking to be restored to a minimum level, in the knowledge that such a move does not bring with it any risk of illegality. A more transparent market and more controls are needed, legal uncertainty needs to be reduced, and counterfeiting and unfair competition need to be clamped down on. The compulsory origin marking of imported goods may be indirectly or directly useful in all of this. It would not incur extra costs for producers, exporters or European consumers, thus making it easier to create a level playing field with those trade partners that have already implemented the standard, in line with the political and cultural decision that was and is aimed at creating, expanding and strengthening an increasingly large and free world market.
Compulsory origin marking will also make it possible to promote the high-quality, and I stress high-quality, manufacturing industry in many European countries, which is wrongly regarded as inconsequential. This attitude is, in itself, also a major social issue that Europe must not overlook if the Lisbon objectives are to be pursued in practical terms rather than with abstract statements.
Finally, this is an opportunity to put some questions to the Commission. What is the Commission’s strategy when it comes to strengthening the external aspects of European competitiveness, given the extremely close relationship between industry and trade, between production and promotion? What resources does the Commission intend to use in order to strengthen these aspects? Why has the Commission confined itself to including in the proposal only products from those sectors that asked to be included and not extended it to all industrial products, as the United States has instead done? These are a few questions that it seems only natural to ask in an increasingly globalised world, which must develop freely, without protectionism, but which must do so while also respecting the rules that govern the general interest, above all of the citizens and of consumers."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples