Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-02-18-Speech-1-211"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080218.27.1-211"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, you certainly do not have an easy task. You have one of the most difficult portfolios to deal with. The area of trade/external trade is one which faces completely new challenges. We have been talking about globalisation for years, but I think we are only now beginning to understand what it is about.
In your famous speech in Berlin, the Churchill Lecture, you said that Europe is exposed to new challenges and that since the end of the war, the challenges have changed because the frame of reference is no longer Berlin or Paris but Mumbai, Shanghai and the other major cities of the emerging economies. We share your view. You are absolutely right. We see this just as you do. We see the challenges which the European Union must face up to in a new international and global context. China is real. China is not just a myth or an image; China has become a reality to all of us and is a symbol of change. The question is, which conclusions do we draw from this? You conclude that we must change the instruments. You conclude that we must face up to the challenges by adapting the trade defence instruments or other areas.
My group has not found the conclusive answer, but we certainly have many more doubts. As you can hear, these doubts are shared in this House. We have doubts because these defence instruments have proved their worth. The defence instruments have a certain flexibility. They can be interpreted in different ways. They can take account of the different industry interests, and they can interpret the Community interest in different ways. The test can be applied in different ways, and no, it is not always perfect.
Incidentally, I know that you have not made many mistakes. I myself can identify two points where the evaluation was wrong, but I think that will be the case with new instruments as well. Where are we going then? You say you would like to continue down this road and you would like to continue the consultations. You have not yet closed the drawer. Where should this road take us then? Where should the consultations take us? How would you like to conduct the consultations with this House and with the committee responsible? These are three questions which follow on from what my colleagues have asked. I would be most grateful for some information from you, as I am receiving e-mails every day. Are the changes taking place in your DG an indication that you are pursuing the restructuring with a view to your forthcoming communication? Are the technical changes which are apparently under way in your DG an indicator of this? Can the non-application of the trade defence instruments in 2007 also be interpreted as an indicator, or is it just coincidence, and other factors are in play?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples