Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-05-22-Speech-2-036"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070522.6.2-036"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"First of all, I wish to begin by thanking Mr Caspary. I have to say that this is one of the best reports on trade policy I have seen in Parliament, clearly stating that free trade promotes prosperity and that protectionism promotes poverty. It is a positive step forwards that we are able to state this together in the European Parliament. The Commission’s Global Europe initiative on the external dimension of competitiveness is also extremely constructive. Trade policy ought of course to have been part of the Lisbon Agenda from the very beginning. To talk about European competitiveness without talking about our trade with the surrounding world is otherwise just to spout empty words.
While you are still here, I should like to take the opportunity to put two points of view to you, Mr Mandelson.
Firstly, I have noticed that the Commission often talks about competitiveness, but then almost only of the importance of increasing market access and reducing customs duties in other countries. However, it is at least as important to increase access and other countries’ opportunities to come here and to reduce our own duties. It would not only give European consumers and companies cheaper products but would also make for keener competition and thus increase our competitiveness in relation to the surrounding world. Reducing our own duties is, then, at least as important as others doing so.
The other matter I wish to address is the need to reform trade defence instruments. On that matter, I do not really agree with the report before us. I understand that a very great deal of pressure was placed on the Commission after that initiative was put forward. Unfortunately, that pressure appears to have led to a lower level of ambition on the part of the Commission. The rhetoric has shifted from talk of reform to talk of an overhaul, but I expect the Commission to present a reform of the trade defence instruments that is worthy of the name. That the EU should defend us from trade is, of course, as stupid as it sounds.
I would also refer to one of my favourite examples of absurd trade barriers, namely the EU’s peculiar duties on low-energy light bulbs as, at the same time as we worry about the greenhouse effect and talk about banning ordinary light bulbs, we protect ourselves from the import of low-energy light bulbs by means of high duties.
No, Mr Mandelson, we must carry out a thoroughgoing reform of the trade defence instruments without delay."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples