Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-05-09-Speech-1-185-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110509.22.1-185-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, the regulation on transitional arrangements for bilateral investment treaties is an important legislative initiative. The Lisbon Treaty has entrusted the Union with a new exclusive competence on foreign direct investment.
The continued existence, since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, of more than 1 200 investment-related international agreements concluded by Member States is not questioned under international law. However, it is incompatible, under EU law, with the new exclusive competence on foreign direct investment. At the same time, these agreements serve as a valuable source of legal protection for European investors operating abroad. Because the Lisbon Treaty does not contain arrangements clarifying the status of bilateral agreements, we need to establish legal certainty for investors benefiting from these agreements by authorising their continued existence.
While it is important to authorise existing investment agreements, it is also important to foresee the possibility of taking action in a cooperative manner to address important issues that could arise with regard to the content of the agreements and their interaction with EU investment policy. We have to reserve appropriate mechanisms for Union action to permit the development and implementation of the policy at EU level. I understand that, in relation to the Commission proposal, the scope for such action is the most difficult issue – for Parliament and even more so for the Council.
So the challenge we have here is to find a solution that safeguards the principles I have just outlined and is acceptable to both Parliament and the Council. We realise, in this respect, that there are still some considerable gaps to be bridged between the institutions but, at the end of the day, we will have to find a compromise in the interests of the EU and of its investors.
We believe that the amendments adopted by the Committee on International Trade constitute a basis for finding such a solution. They maintain fundamental trust in the Commission’s proposal but, at the same time, seek a potential compromise. We note with satisfaction here that Articles 5 and 6 would still leave the Commission the power to review investment agreements and withdraw authorisation should such agreements create major problems.
Given the positions of the main protagonists in this process, we will all have to show some level of flexibility. The Commission is ready to play its part, to be flexible and to facilitate an agreement between Parliament and the Council, but this cannot be at any cost. We will be vigilant on the basic principles of our proposal. The existence of the bilateral investment agreements needs to be safeguarded but, at the same time, we cannot unconditionally bless agreements if they create significant problems.
The Commission fully shares Parliament’s sentiment that the competence on investment should be exercised primarily at EU level, and we support the objective of Europeanisation of investment negotiations. However, I need to make clear that the Commission will not be able to negotiate with all countries targeted for investment protection by Member States. Our Member States have investment treaties with more than 100 countries. Replacing those will be a very gradual exercise, taking years. That is why it is important to create an effective mechanism empowering the Member States, under certain conditions, to continue negotiating and concluding bilateral investment agreements. Such a mechanism should respect the procedures and prerogatives of the institutions involved.
Finally, it needs to be emphasised that we are approaching a decisive stage of the legislative process, and time is becoming a major factor. It is important because the longer the adoption of the regulation takes, the longer the limbo period lasts, with the potential to create legal uncertainty for investors. I hope that, after the vote, Parliament and the Council can sit down together to find an early agreement on this issue. We are ready actively to support them in that endeavour."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples