Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-02-18-Speech-1-191"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080218.26.1-191"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, when one reads the Commission Communication and, in particular, Parliament’s report, one might think that the poor little EU is being discriminated against by malign foreign forces. This emerges especially from paragraph 4 of the report, which says that we urge the Commission to ensure that the European Union’s trade interests are defended against the abusive or unfair trade practices of third countries. And again: ‘when third countries unjustifiably restrict access to their markets by European Union companies, the European Union should react rapidly and firmly’.
We should be careful when using that kind of language to former colonies. They remember when Europe last acted firmly to defend its interests. That kind of talk can damage us more than any trade restrictions.
Certainly the Commission has a point in that there are technical barriers to trade and unfair rules. Of course we must discuss them with our partners calmly and reasonably and solve any problems there may be. But invite, not only businesses, but also voluntary organisations, including those from third countries. Then perhaps we can understand how the rules came about and understand whether they are reasonable or not.
I am uneasy about the ten-point list. Restrictive export procedures for raw materials, a ceiling on foreign ownership in the services sector, restrictions on foreign direct investment, state procurement procedures and the application of state aid must be seen as barriers to trade which have their justification; they arise from legitimate legislation and are administrative measures from public authorities. They cannot be removed without public consultation and deliberation, if stability in those countries is not to be compromised.
Countries must have the right to protect health and the environment and have procurement procedures which ensure that their local businesses are not completely excluded from international competition, thereby creating mass unemployment. Also we cannot be so unreasonable as to expect countries to protect our intangible property rights when they hardly have the resources to protect human rights. We should promote freedom rather than set traps.
We must come down on those rules which seek to favour businesses in their countries which have foreign operations and which act against other foreign players. That is where we can remove rules. We should be able to turn a blind eye to rules which are directly or indirectly intended to protect the population or businesses active locally. We ourselves protected our industries until they were strong enough to compete internationally. Others must be allowed to do the same."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples