Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-05-10-Speech-2-449-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110510.60.2-449-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"−
Trade policy is yet another area in which competences have been withdrawn from the Member States, with the EU then having ‘exclusive competence’. This is the foundation for this proposal for a regulation: in other words, applying Article 207(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which provides for the exclusive competence of the EU in matters of foreign direct investment as part of the common commercial policy.
The importance of trade policy and, of course, of investment policy as instruments for promoting the interests of a country and its people according to its specific characteristics and conditions are all too clear. What is also clear – as in the case of Portugal, for example – is the damage that results from trade and investment policies that do not give due consideration to the interests, circumstances and conditions of the country, since they are essentially decided by the major powers of the EU in defence of the interests of their major companies; the balance within the EU tipped decisively towards these powers when the Union strengthened its competences.
Among other serious aspects, this regulation intends to give the Commission the power to withdraw authorisations, to ask Member States to negotiate or reject bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and to approve new BITs. Those the reasons why we voted against."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples