Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-11-Speech-3-147"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061011.16.3-147"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the introduction of duties on shoes from Vietnam and China is a splendid own-goal by the EU. It is bad economic policy and bad trade policy, and it is morally bankrupt.
Allow me firstly to explain why it is bad economic policy. What we are doing at the moment, you see, is standing up for and defending those industries that are uncompetitive, at the same time as punishing those industries that have adjusted to globalisation, for example by moving their production to more competitive countries. In that way, we achieve the feat of weakening the EU’s competitiveness two-fold by means of one and the same decision.
I am afraid that the Commission’s vision for the future is that the EU should compete globally using cheap shoes. I think the worst that could happen is that the Commission might succeed and that we would retain this industry. In that case, we shall be able, in 30 years, to expect to see Europe exporting shoes to Vietnam, while Vietnam exports cars, or an even higher-value product that we cannot even imagine, to Europe.
Secondly, the introduction of these duties is bad trade policy. At the end of this month, Vietnam will become a member of the WTO. The EU’s welcome present is duties on Vietnamese shoes. The signals we are sending to Vietnam, from one of the world’s largest trading blocks, are a disaster, especially since the country is going through major changes in order to meet the requirements for future WTO membership.
Thirdly, it is morally bankrupt because it hits individuals hard in order to satisfy small, well-organised special interests. You are not content to prolong the duties on shoes, but you are now also extending them to include children’s shoes. What do you say to Swedish families with small children who may be forced to buy several pairs of children’s shoes per year? Do you think that families with children have too much money? Have the previous measures allowed them to get off too lightly?
This is an example of the EU showing its very worst side, namely when well-organised special interests are allowed to come before the wellbeing of the people. That, I think, is something we must prevent from happening in the future."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples