Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-05-Speech-2-025"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060905.5.2-025"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, although there is, of course, something fundamentally wrong when the negotiations of the Doha round are broken off, every crisis brings an opportunity with it. As we have seen over the past few years, no particular success has been achieved by going from one round to another and constantly saying that we are not satisfied but will keep going, so it follows that the time now left to us must be, not least, a time in which we reflect on things.
Theoretically, we all realise that the WTO, with its 150 member states, cannot be managed in the same way as it was at the beginning, when it had 23 of them. Why do we not draw particular conclusions from this? Why, too, can we not for once consider where, overall, Europe’s interests lie, and what our trade position is in the various sectors? It is not enough to say that agriculture accounts for only 2% or 3% of the total trade figures if those figures, in effect, relate to large regions of the European Union and would change the shape of our society, and so we need to come up with a sort of overall concept. It really is worth trying to do that.
Neither WTO negotiations nor trade talks carried on a patchwork basis, along the lines of 'I give you three cows and you give me two fishes in exchange', are no use any more. If the differences between states are constantly on the increase – and you, Commissioner, said as much – then why are we thinking in such categories as ‘multilateral’ or ‘bilateral’? Why can we not start thinking in terms of – among others – ‘multiregional’ categories?
In a nuanced world like this one, we cannot apply the same yardstick to every state. However much we may cherish development policy – and I, too, am in favour of it – we, in this European Union, also have an obligation to our own citizens.
What is very important in these rounds – as their failure demonstrated – is the need for greater involvement of the parliaments in the negotiations. It is not enough for a parliament to be able, at the end, to give or withhold its approval. Since we lament the failure to involve the public, let at least their representatives have the right to be present at negotiations and consulted – if no more than that – while they are in progress, for it is we, at the end of the day, who have to explain them to the electorate."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples