Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-09-14-Speech-1-194"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090914.26.1-194"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"− Mr President, I would like to say that the debate did not, in a sense, at all surprise me, because the concerns that colleagues have raised have indeed been raised over the months.
I am not interested in closing down jobs or industries in Europe at all, and this deal does not do that. And those of you who think that you have evidence to prove it, I ask you to supply it to me, because the rhetoric is one thing, the reality is a different thing, and we really have got to get beyond the rhetoric and into the reality of what this deal provides.
Indeed, I would argue that what we have got before us is very important for all the industrial sectors. The question about duty drawback is, for me, a very simple one. Duty drawback is designed so that our response to it will prevent a particular problem. The question is, is it the only way of solving a problem? If there are other ways that equally solve the problem but, in fact, invite us to get a better trade agreement, then I will explore them. But I still want to solve the same problem, and I believe the mechanisms we have in place in this agreement do precisely that. It is not some thing that we hold up as being for ever enshrined as the only way of achieving what we want to achieve – to prevent, effectively, imports via the back door – and I believe we have resolved the problem in a different way.
So I am not going to make apologies – politically, economically or in any other way – to Parliament for having gone out and invested in negotiating this important trade deal. I make no apology for that, and I make no apology for putting forward to this Parliament what I believe is a serious, 21st century free trade agreement of enormous benefit across the economy of the European Union. I especially make no apology for doing it at a time of economic crisis because, if ever there was a time when my responsibility was to provide as much support for the businesses and the workers of Europe, I believe that time is now, and that is what this deal does.
I do urge colleagues, as I said earlier on, to look at the reality of the deal. You will be lobbied – I have been lobbied – but actually, when you look at what we have achieved, I believe it is a very concrete result that will hugely benefit the economy of Europe. That, in the end, is what we set out to do, and that, in the end, is what we have achieved.
I want to pay tribute to David Martin, just to begin with, for the work that he has done in the committee. It is very important that I recognise how much the Committee on International Trade has worked with me over the months that have proceeded it, and of course I am very well aware that colleagues have not had the benefit of seeing the detail of the agreement so far. So I will try and address the concerns. But, more importantly, we will make sure that we give you more and more detail, because it is important that you look at the facts rather than the assertions that will have been made.
Let me just make some general points about the approach on this deal first. This deal was put in play in order to achieve the best for European industry – including, I would say to colleagues from the UKIP, British industry. It is absolutely in the interests of Europe, in my view, to move forward with this deal – otherwise I would not be standing here suggesting that we move forward in the way that I have.
Now, in doing so, there was a clear
a clear approach that the Commission took which, as has been said, was supported by Parliament, by the Commission and by the Council, and that is indeed the way we have gone forward. My colleague, Mr Arif, will not mind, I think, if I say that to suggest that I would sacrifice any industry, I find alarming or perhaps a little depressing, because that is certainly not the approach that I would take.
Do I think that if you want a serious trade deal you have to recognise that actually it is a deal where both sides benefit? Yes, I do. If you want to have trade agreements, if we do believe – which I think we do – that trade is the engine that will take us out of recession, then it means you have serious, tough negotiations with industries and with countries that we care about having a deal with. Otherwise, we can just do deals all day long with countries we do not much care about, and we can open markets because we are not really interested.
Korea is a serious market. It provides real opportunities for chemicals, pharmaceuticals, other industries. We need to recognise the value and importance of doing this if we want serious trade agreements. We are, in fact, an economic superpower. I could not disagree more with my colleagues from the United Kingdom when they talk about Switzerland and try and equate that, somehow, with the relationship that we are trying to form in Europe with Korea – or maybe I just missed the point.
This is about serious negotiations to get a serious outcome and, as the details of this unfold, I hope that colleagues will look at it in the spirit that we have tried to set it up.
The car industry gave us at the beginning a list of things that they wished us to achieve. They were genuinely very concerned to keep the market in Korea open, and we have achieved all that they asked at the beginning.
The textile industry: I am confident that there is little to worry about. The textile industry safeguards that we have will indeed make sure that we retain European jobs."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples