Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-11-Speech-3-256"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061011.21.3-256"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, I consider it right that the European Union is striving for beneficial and close relations with the most diverse regions of the globe and, of course, with Mercosur as well. However, it is wrong in my view if the Commission, by means of such agreements, tries to implement through the back door that which was rejected by the majority of countries during the WTO negotiations, namely, the liberalisation of international trade between partner countries with very different economic and social conditions, without taking the different situations in these countries into account. The EU - Latin America summit which took place in Vienna, as well as the alternative ‘Enlazando alternativas’ summit of last May afforded the opportunity of being better able to understand the wishes of the new voices in Latin America and of shaping relations in the interests of the populations of both regions in a more balanced manner, and not just for the benefit of industry and commerce.
A few days ago, the Commission published a communication on its trade policy strategy which focussed more strongly on economic liberalisation than had previously been the case. In yesterday’s debate, Commissioner Mandelson again emphasised that he shares the same fundamental position. I would not like to advocate such a fundamental position. The report contains references which I deem to be extremely important, such as emphasising the principles of ‘less than full reciprocity’ and ‘special and differential treatment depending on the levels of development’.
All in all, however, the report puts forward the known liberalisation demands and even goes beyond them by approving, for instance, the area of investment as the subject of a chapter in the EU-Mercosur agreement. As a result of international protests, however, this has been deleted in its entirety from the Doha development round negotiations.
My group supports a fair association agreement but not the route taken to a free trade area between the European Union and Mercosur."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples