Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-06-06-Speech-1-128-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110606.19.1-128-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Commissioner de Gucht is currently absent and has asked me to make the following statement in response to the parliamentary question from Vital Moreira.
Honourable Members, we are moving closer to an agreement which will help to provide a much-needed boost to the economies of the EU and Canada. We are looking forward to hearing Parliament’s views during the debate today and the resolution that you will subsequently adopt.
Today’s plenary debate on the negotiations for a comprehensive economic and trade agreement with Canada is very welcome. So far, these negotiations have run smoothly, and it should be possible to conclude the bulk of an agreement before the end of the year, with a formal conclusion early in 2012.
However, we are also entering a stage of the negotiations where things are getting more difficult: in particular, because some of the outstanding issues are related to inherent differences in our economic structure or regulatory systems.
This is a tremendously beneficial agreement for both parties, with positive impacts on business, investors and consumers alike, thanks to the very broad scope envisaged. In material terms, we calculate that this could bring an additional EUR 20 billion per year to both economies. Where EU offensive interests, such as provincial government procurement, lie in areas of provincial competence, we have been assured that the provinces and territories of Canada will be committed to the negotiations and to the implementation of the agreement.
In relation to your particular concerns, EU Member States have now reached an understanding on the usage of the so-called ‘negative list’ approach. A key reason why a trading partner like Canada prefers a negative list is that it provides much greater transparency and legal security, because it makes very clear which services are excluded from market opening, including also where monopolies and exclusive rights may exist in the public sector. Hence, the negative list approach in no way prejudices the ability of an EU Member State to continue to maintain the right to retain a monopoly in the future for a particular service.
It remains up to the EU and Canada to decide what commitments it is willing or not to undertake in each sector, including with regard to public services or other services where future policy flexibility is important.
EU governments will continue to have the option of imposing universal public service obligations on private operators and of subsidising public services as necessary. Trade agreements do not impose privatisation or deregulation obligations, and it will be no different for this CETA, which will include provisions on sustainable development covering economic, environmental and social aspects. Such provisions will be fully integrated within the trade agreement.
We note the concerns that have been expressed with regard to the WTO panel on the EU’s seals ban and on Canadian oil sands. While we understand these concerns, we believe that there are good reasons to keep these processes separated from the CETA negotiations. This being said, the negotiation – as in the case of any other trade negotiation – does not in any way impede the ability of the EU or its partner countries to draw up and implement environmental measures.
More specifically, as regards the Fuels Quality Directive, I want to make it absolutely clear that the negotiation and a future agreement does not and will not represent any negative interference with regard to the implementation of that directive."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples