Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-11-24-Speech-3-510"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20101124.26.3-510"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spoken text
"Mr President, I think this has been a very rich debate. While the philosophy behind the three reports is similar, the details, ideas and responses we have shared today cannot be addressed adequately in the short time at my disposal. Some ideas are workable, others less so, because we operate in a legal, an institutional and a political framework, both as a Union of 27 Member States and as a member of the WTO. I will try to highlight what I believe to be the salient considerations for each report. Unfortunately I cannot be exhaustive. Let me add that this is not only a matter of trade, or of bilateral and multilateral trade agreements. In the United States, legislation was recently adopted whereby multinational companies – and not only those with their operations in the United States but also those with their registered offices there – are required to be responsible and to produce certification of their financial operations and transactions with respect to raw materials. I think it is a very laudable initiative which is, in fact, completely outside bilateral agreements. Most of these operations concerning raw materials are not covered by bilateral agreements, they are simply financial and industrial operations by multinational companies, but if they have their registered offices in the United States, then the United States can take action vis-à-vis such companies. I think it would be a very good idea for us to consider doing exactly the same with respect to European companies that are active mostly in Third World countries, and then to extend the same approach to countries like Canada and Australia, so that we would ultimately encompass the majority of these kinds of industrial activities and extractive industries in the world. I think this would be a considerable contribution to development in sustainable conditions. In short, congratulations for the three reports. I am certainly willing to continue the discussion on these subjects with you in the coming months and years. On the Saïfi report, a number of you have raised the possibility of ILO observer status in the WTO. My starting point is that there is definitely much scope for improved international governance and better coordination between international organisations. My next consideration is that, in order to leverage trade policy to achieve a better social and environmental outcome, we need to set feasible objectives. Structural changes take a long time to implement and, if we are realistic about the WTO membership coming round to a ‘trade and ...’ agenda, this is a long-term endeavour. Let me add that, with regard to the proposal in the Saïfi report that there should be a human rights assessment of free trade agreements (FTAs), I believe this should happen throughout the negotiations. I would be rather sceptical about having a special period between the end of the negotiations and the initialling of the agreement. This was also discussed this morning in another context, but I think we should stick to the procedure in the Treaty of Lisbon which makes it very clear that it is up to the Commission to initial such agreements; after that, the ratification procedure starts and the Council signs, which is their way of ratifying; then the European Parliament has the right and the duty to ratify by vote. With regard to the idea of having a human rights assessment before the initialling – let us call it a kind of pre-condition – I would not be positive about this. On the other hand, I think the actual idea of assessing the human rights impact of an agreement makes sense, and I am positive on that. Specific questions have also been put, for example on child labour. You know that we are currently negotiating a free trade agreement with India, where the whole matter of sustainability also has to be addressed. India is very sceptical about such a sustainability chapter in the agreement, but we insist – and we will continue to insist – that such a chapter has its place, and I think that ultimately it will be included. I would simply like to ask that, later on when you will have to discuss this, you take into account the fact that the ideas of individual third countries on such a sustainability chapter may concern not only the content of it but also the philosophy of certain third countries on this issue. With respect to the Jadot report, I have heard calls for a climate chapter in each bilateral agreement. I am all for environmental sustainability because the future does not belong to us. Where I think we must be careful, however, is in recognising that the many elements which need to come into play to provide a satisfactory response to the climate change challenge – from emission caps to financing – cannot be translated into provisions in our trade agreements. I think there is a wider forum for that and, provided that there is an agreement in the wider forum, then of course such an agreement has to be reflected in the bilateral free trade agreements. Whether it is also possible in the development round that we have just discussed, the Doha Round, is much more questionable because there is certainly not agreement among all the participants in this multilateral process to have a climate chapter in the final outcome. However, our position will be that we are in favour of this. Lastly, on Mr Désir’s report, I think this comes at a very timely moment, given that a new Commission communication on corporate social responsibility (CSR) is in preparation. The Commission and the members of the OECD are actively contributing to updating the current OECD benchmarks in time for the OECD ministerial meeting in May 2011. In all our CSR-related activities, we will carefully consider various options for promoting responsible behaviour by European companies, irrespective of their place of operation, and with special regard to feasibility and consequences."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
lpv:videoURI

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph