Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-06-11-Speech-1-087-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120611.19.1-087-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, one of the amendments put forward raises the problem that if one country in a customs union is a GSP country, and the others are not, this would create imbalances.
I can hardly imagine the opposite being the case: would you, for example, agree to China obtaining ‘Everything But Arms’ status as soon as it entered into an agreement with, say, Laos or Cambodia, to set up a customs union by a later date, for example, within 25 years? It would be very difficult to imagine that being the right answer to the question. You could say the same of India, Pakistan, Thailand or Malaysia, which do the same with LDCs. Needless to say, this would accelerate preference erosion, with a significant drop in LDC exports. They would be squeezed completely out of the market with such a system.
Several Members have asked why we did not include other criteria. We have given a lot of thought to this issue, but our conclusion is that we have to ensure WTO compatibility, and the use of a single indicator which is internationally recognised is, we think, the best solution. It would be a disservice to developing countries, and to the credentials of the EU as a serious partner, if we added more criteria and, as a result, lost yet another WTO case on GSP. This would lead to a full redesign of the new scheme just after it entered into force. Therefore, we should stick to an internationally recognised, objective way to differentiate among countries.
Another question that has been raised a couple of times relates to using the Human Development Index as an indicator. Again, we looked into the possibility of using the Human Development Index in GSP, but this index is not well suited to this exercise. Human Development Index data are not complete in terms of time or countries covered; also, Human Development Index categories are relative and fixed. This means that countries may develop significantly, and the development needs which the GSP should address may change, but they will remain in the same category. For example, no matter how much China grows, it is likely to stay in the same ‘medium’ category and thus, basically, keep GSP preferences forever.
These problems are acknowledged by the United Nations itself. They would render the Human Development Index inadequate for the GSP and enhance the risk of a WTO challenge. The Human Development Index is a good index to establish a long-term picture of social development, but it is ill-suited to the short-term analysis of export needs which the GSP requires.
Finally, as regards transition periods, I would like to say that these were the subject of negotiations between Council, Parliament and the Commission up to a few weeks ago, and I am satisfied with the compromise achieved. A number of countries no longer receiving GSP benefits are in free trade negotiations with us. We look forward to their conclusion and recall the EU commitment to assist, pending WTO membership, and to support development as per EU development policy – a debate we will come to later on. Finally, I would like to thank all colleagues for their comments and I look forward to the vote on the GSP tomorrow."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples