Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-05-09-Speech-1-194-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2011-05-09"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Transitional arrangements for bilateral investment agreements between Member States and third countries (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20110509.22.1-194-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2011-05-09-Speech-1-195-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Godelieve Quisthoudt-rowohl2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation to the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation for relations with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation to the Cariforum — EU Parliamentary Committee (2010-06-16--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the United States (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; INTA (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 substitute; AFET (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 substitute; SEDE (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of the Andean Community (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, there are four issues I would like to address very briefly. The first is that this project should come under an enormous banner guaranteeing security and reliability for investors who wish to invest in the EU, as well as investors in the EU who wish to invest elsewhere. Both groups must be able to rely on the support of the existing contracts. Secondly: while we should be very grateful to the rapporteur for his truly comprehensive work, we should avoid trying to pack too much into trade agreements. I must contradict the rapporteur because this is quite a typical process for dealing with differences of opinion at committee or parliamentary level and not everything can be accommodated by compromises. Accordingly, I should like to thank the rapporteur for his fairness in our cooperation. Let us wait and see how the vote goes tomorrow. Thirdly, I welcome Mr De Gucht’s statement that the Commission was not questioning the existing agreements. This does not mean that the EU should not quickly conclude new agreements now that the Union has been reconstituted under the Treaty of Lisbon. However, if Mr De Gucht believes this to be the case, he will certainly agree with the significant weakening of the instrument for examining existing agreements, which we voted on in an amendment, and with the limitation of the reasons for withdrawing approval to four clear criteria. Which brings me to my final point: it has been made quite plain in these discussions and during the committee’s work that there are different interests at stake here, depending on how many bilateral agreements one’s own country has concluded. That is why it is a good thing that a transitional period is clearly defined in this directive."@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph