Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-02-10-Speech-3-683"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100210.34.3-683"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, the position of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) is very clear as far as the European Union’s trade policy is concerned. We are firm defenders of free trade and it is certainly vital that Europe continues negotiating trade agreements with other countries because they generate new opportunities for European companies, that is to say, new jobs, which are very much required in light of the serious current economic crisis.
I did very much like your words Commissioner, because I also believe that it is very important that these agreements contain sufficient guarantees to avoid signing clauses which are unbalanced and unfair for European industry.
The agreement with South Korea has been put forward by the Commission as the first in a new generation of more ambitious trade agreements for Europe, hence the importance of this agreement. It is not a question of whether it is a small country or not; it is a question of not weakening our capacity for negotiation in future agreements with much larger countries.
Therefore, we are not against the South Korea free trade agreement; however, we do want certain paragraphs to be studied more rigorously, which we believe create unfair competitive disadvantages for certain European industrial sectors and give Korean producers an unfair advantage.
Commissioner, I want you to clearly explain to me why the safeguard clause for the duty drawback enters into force in five years. On the last opportunity I had to speak to you, you stated that the reason was that tariffs on vehicles were also dismantled after five years.
The agreement stipulates that they will dismantle the tariffs for vehicles which weigh more than five tonnes after five years. However, for vehicles which weigh less than five tonnes, which are all standard vehicles, the 10% tariff will be dismantled in three years. What is the reason for this two-year time lapse Commissioner?
I would also like to receive more details regarding any updates on this aspect you mentioned. What is the point of correcting these problems
when the whole reason for having a safeguard clause is to anticipate possible negative consequences?"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples