Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-05-22-Speech-2-046"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070522.6.2-046"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, we have heard some very well informed and very intelligent contributions to this debate. I appreciate them and thank those who have taken the trouble to speak.
Mr Markov and Mrs Mann both touched on the issue of the role of the European Parliament. I have always been interested in and committed to close cooperation with the European Parliament in the context of the Framework Agreement that we have. Wherever possible we extend our participation with the Parliament on trade matters. That is why we have shared with Parliament the negotiating directives for the FTAs in an entirely transparent way.
I would like just to touch on something that Mr Papastamkos said. In addition to his reference to our pursuit of zero taxes for an agreed list of environmental goods, I believe and I accept that we need to examine and find a way to deal with the free-rider issue in respect of climate-friendly policies and in connection with the Kyoto Protocol. In the long term this is going to become an increasingly important feature of the climate change debate. I think it is premature to think of a carbon tax. In my view, there are very many practical as well as legal difficulties in pursuing that specific idea. We must be careful that any climate-friendly policies and instruments that we might develop in the future do not become protectionist instruments. However, I entirely accept that the time has come for us to look carefully at these issues, because they are going to become increasingly relevant in the long term.
I should like to thank all those honourable Members who have spoken and contributed so well to this debate. I look forward to continuing and strong cooperation between myself and my services and this Parliament.
I think that the spirit, if not absolutely every letter, both of my own approach and of Mr Caspary’s report was captured by Mr Fjellner when he said that free trade spreads prosperity while protectionism spreads poverty. Broadly speaking, I think that is correct but I would say that free trade is a necessary but insufficient condition to bring about economic development and poverty alleviation in some of the more needy countries of the world.
I agree with those, including Mr Désir, who would like the Commission to operate a principle of proportionate reciprocity as far as developing countries are concerned. I agree with that and my approach reflects the capacities of the developing country markets in question. The EU asks of trading partners only what their level of development allows but, as others have pointed out, the sorts of economies that are seeking free trade agreements with us – Korea, the ASEAN countries, India – could hardly be described as typical least-developed countries in the world.
Mr Arif focused on the so-called Singapore issues, as did Mr Désir himself. All I can say in this regard is that, if partner countries decide that they wish to discuss these issues bilaterally with the European Union as a means of promoting their own development and creating economic opportunities for them, why should they not do so? I do not think it is for us in Europe to tell developing countries and emerging economies that they should not be addressing issues like investment, competition and transparency in government procurement.
One or two honourable Members have alluded to trade defence. Mr Caspary did at the outset and Mr Guardans Cambó has done so subsequently, as has Mrs Saïfi. There is no question in my mind of removing Europe’s right of recourse to anti-dumping measures. Trade defence instruments are a vital way of ensuring fair trade where goods have been produced in conditions of subsidy or where price distortion is taking place. Of course that should not be confused with the ordinary low-cost advantages in trade for many developing countries. Our purpose in using trade defence instruments is not to protect European business from fair low-cost competition.
It is true that from time to time I sometimes encounter those seeking use of TDI because they are afraid of competition, not because they want to engage fairly in competition. But I think that a periodic review allows us to ensure that public confidence in these instruments is maintained and to make sure that, if necessary, these instruments can change in order to reflect a changing world. That is all we are doing.
I should like to go back to one or two points that have been made. As regards the question of services liberalisation, I have quite a lot of sympathy with Mr Kamall’s point. Yes, we will be looking at market opening in the services sector in our bilateral FTA negotiations, but this will be a negotiation where our partners will maintain the right to regulate their services sectors and their right to decide whether or not to open public services sectors. That is for them to decide. It is not for us to impose.
I am also glad that one or two honourable Members have focused on the issue of labour conditions, social conditions and environmental conditions amongst our trading partners. I passionately believe that sustainable development, which touches on all those issues, is an overarching objective for trade policy as well. One trade and environment issue that we have pursued vigorously in the Doha talks, but which some countries have opposed, is lowering tariffs on environmental goods. Many environmental problems could be addressed by helping this trade. In future FTAs we will also continue to include commitments to standards at the workplace.
Honourable Members will know that we run into some opposition from our negotiating partners in respect of these conditions. They see them not as a way of levering up standards but as a way for those in the developed world to use new pretexts to keep their markets closed to the goods and services being exported from developing countries. So it important for us to keep a balance in these matters and certainly, as far as these issues are concerned, I strongly believe that we should be using the pressure that we have at our disposal by means of incentives, not sanctions."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples