Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-09-12-Speech-3-534-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120912.28.3-534-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the situation and general issues with regard to Central America are similar to those with Peru and Colombia. I therefore very much concur in my report with what my colleague said earlier, so I can keep my speech a little shorter.
I believe that there are two aspects to the discussions currently under way – a technical aspect and another aspect that is a great deal broader. The technical aspect is relatively easy to explain: the safeguard clause is intended to protect European producers against unfair competition as a market is opened up, particularly in those areas close to this new market. We have done our utmost to frame the safeguard clauses so as to enable this to work, but also in such a way that free trade will be able to function more effectively in the future. Of course there are different opinions on how to achieve this, however I believe that we have found some good compromises that will help bring things to a resolution.
Then there is a second aspect that is perhaps more philosophical in nature, because it directly addresses the fundamental question: should trade policy just be restricted to trade policy, or should it go further? This is a question that has always concerned us in our discussions regarding the safeguard clause. I should state that the safeguard clause is just one small element in this agreement with Central America.
However this was also the reason why we said that a safeguard clause must be more than just a trade clause. It also needs to try to influence certain other things: the issues of human rights and social standards, as well as environmental aspects. Some legal opinions state that such things have no place in a safeguard clause. I believe, however, that they do have a place here and must be included, because such a clause, as Mr Lange has already explained, will protect European jobs and social standards. In order to achieve this, social standards, human rights and work conditions must also be improved in our partner countries.
Of course, the big question that divides us from many of our colleagues is to what extent these influences should be permitted, representing as they do attempts to intervene in other countries through trade policy. We cannot use trade policy as a way to coerce the governments of other countries into action. At best we can try to influence these governments so that they move in the direction we consider to be correct. That is what we have attempted to do. Of course, people differ on how far this should go. The result is a compromise. I believe it is an acceptable compromise. That is why I also believe that it makes sense to adopt these safeguard clauses tomorrow. Discussion of the nuts and bolts of the agreement will be more intensive in some areas. With regard to safeguard clauses, however, it must be seen that these are just safeguard clauses and not an entire agreement."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples