Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-05-23-Speech-3-209-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120523.15.3-209-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I have now listened to a whole raft of people who are all in agreement that what we need is to be treated fairly by the Chinese. I do not suppose anybody in this Parliament would disagree with that. What surprises me, when I hear so many honourable Members standing up and talking about reciprocity, is that people think that the word reciprocity is the key thing in this regard. The problem is that when drawing up agreements with other trading partners, you have to be very careful that you are not preparing the way for a trade war, and that is what reciprocity does. It is the first step towards a trade war, and that certainly does not lead to more open markets or greater access to China or more growth.
What we need in Europe is a realistic view of what the Chinese can do and want to do. We must not be naïve, of course. We have to set requirements, and this report is also an expression of that. However, I would warn against using the word reciprocity as a basis in this context. It is the first step towards a trade war – in other words, it is protectionism, which is the opposite of what I imagine most Members of this Parliament would want. We must have a level playing field, as I described in my opinion on this report that I drafted for the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. We must not take reciprocity as a basis; what we need is a level playing field."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples