Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-09-12-Speech-3-425-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2012-09-12"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Exclusion of certain countries from trade preferences (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"it"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20120912.23.3-425-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2012-09-12-Speech-3-426-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Niccolò Rinaldi2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation to the EU-Kazakhstan, EU-Kyrgyzstan and EU-Uzbekistan Parliamentary Cooperation Committees, and for relations with Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 substitute; DROI (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of South Asia (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation for relations with the Palestinian Legislative Council (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 substitute; DEVE (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Italia dei Valori - Lista Di Pietro (2009-07-14--2014-04-14)3 vice-chair; ALDE (2012-01-27--2014-06-30)3 member; INTA (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 vice-chair; Delegation to the Cariforum — EU Parliamentary Committee (2010-09-08--2014-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we support the proposal resulting from the compromise in the Committee on International Trade. We believe a very reasonable balance has been achieved. On one hand, we have a firm date, a deadline. I would ask you all to consider how absurd it would be to reject the committee’s proposal while we have obligations in the World Trade Organisation that we have to fulfil. On the other hand, we are allowing a couple of years more, thereby at least partly meeting the demands of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. I think this debate needs to be kept in proportion. After all, as the Commissioner pointed out in his speech as well, we are talking about an extremely limited volume of trade, although the decision we make tomorrow will be very important to some ACP capitals. There is a kind of asymmetry between the significance that we attach to what is at stake and how certain ACP countries perceive it. I do not believe that setting such a tight deadline – which might almost seem like an imposition, at least in the eyes of some ACP countries – is an effective way of bringing the negotiations on economic partnership agreements to a swifter conclusion. We do want these agreements. However, these partnership agreements need to be concluded in the best possible way, through persuasion and trying to win the other side round. These two extra years, if they are indeed both necessary, could be an opportunity for us to step up our negotiating efforts, not least by expanding the range of people we talk to in addition to just the governments. The general public in these countries remains somewhat wary, so we must also focus on the members of the national parliaments, who often do not ratify agreements but do carry political weight and influence in the debate in their countries and complain that they are not given enough information. As I proposed during our ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly in Horsens, it may perhaps be necessary to organise public seminars with the media and non-governmental organisations to explain our position properly. There is a Kenyan proverb that says ‘If you want to go far, go together’."@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