Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-06-04-Speech-3-184"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2008-06-04"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Generalised tariff preferences for the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2011 (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20080604.22.3-184"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2008-06-04-Speech-3-1852
lpv:speaker	lp:Christofer Fjellner2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; ENVI (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; EPP-ED (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; INTA (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with Iran (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3 member; CONT (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation for relations with Belarus (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Moderata Samlingspartiet (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Let me begin by saying that I think the Generalised System of Preferences is an extremely good instrument for development, because it binds together trade and development in a very clear manner and gives tariff concessions and hence access to European markets to those countries which make an effort. It is also important that we do use it as a development tool. Now this is a technical review, and it is important that we do not exacerbate matters for those who need development aid most but, on the contrary, strengthen the development dimension. I think that in many ways this review does that in an excellent way and it advances the tool in the right direction, but it does not really go the whole distance. I think for example of Vietnam. Vietnam is heavily dependent on a single product group, namely shoes. As you no doubt know, the GSP system has a threshold value which says that a country must achieve over 50% of the value of its exports in order to be guaranteed GSP status. At the moment Vietnam falls below 50%. That is because of us, because of Europe – we must be aware of that – and because we have penalised Vietnam with tariffs on shoe exports in particular. Regardless of this, they continue to be heavily dependent on their shoe exports, not least poor women in Vietnam. So I wonder: why can they not keep their preference? It is after all only 3.5%. It is not the case that they lose, that they get entirely tariff-free access; they just get somewhat lower tariffs. Besides, in the future we shall have a free trade agreement with Vietnam. So I wonder: why throw them out now when we are about to take them in and absorb these exports through a free trade agreement? I therefore hope that you will look at this during the next period of application, so that no country ends up in this situation, in this limbo into which I think we are putting Vietnam in the GSP system."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph