Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-09-14-Speech-1-182"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090914.26.1-182"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am very pleased to hear a conservative and a liberal fellow Member agree with the Commission; it makes my job as a socialist easier.
Will you commit yourself at last, Commissioner, to ensuring greater transparency and to involving us MEPs to a greater extent? We, and the Commission, created the conditions for a negative image of the Polish plumber; let us not create a negative image of the Korean coach builder.
I hope, in any case, that this evening’s debate will make it possible at last to address the many concerns regarding the impact of this free trade agreement between the European Union and Korea and, in particular, on European industry.
You spoke of a consensus but, Commissioner, I would remind you that, for some months now, certain industrial sectors – including car manufacturers and workers’ unions, which support them – have been warning you of the possible tragic consequences of this agreement. Today, the bulk of these issues have still not been addressed.
It may be the case, however, that you have chosen to sacrifice the European car industry for the benefit of services.
Indeed, why allow Korea to have duty drawback, which is a benefit that has never been granted before, not even to developing countries such as the countries of the Mediterranean? What is the logic behind flexible rules of origin, the impact of which is to be feared, not only for the car industry, but also for the European textile industry?
Why allow such distortions of competition and, above all, why set this precedent?
In the face of these risks, and, unfortunately, of others, which I cannot expand on here but the details of which you know – you have just mentioned them – the Commission has proposed a last resort, the inclusion of a safeguard clause. However, you know, Commissioner, that the safeguard clause is not automatic and that it will be very difficult to implement and impossible to activate for five years.
I will cite just one example to illustrate our fears. If the free trade agreement allows Korea to export 100 000 additional vehicles to Europe – it already exports 600 000 of them annually – 6 000 jobs will be lost. Conversely, Europe is terribly restricted, with each manufacturer being able to export just 1 000 vehicles to Korea, as part of a total European quota of 6 000 vehicles.
At this time of crisis, which is having a particular effect on car workers, how do you explain Europe’s committing itself to such an agreement? Do you envisage a renegotiation of the controversial points that I have just mentioned? This is what a number of Member States and industrial sectors that I have just mentioned are calling for, anyway."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples