Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-10-22-Speech-1-200-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20121022.25.1-200-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is rather dispiriting to address an empty chamber at this time of night. Even if only for the record, however, please allow me to present my report on trade and economic relations with the United States. This report was approved by a large majority in the Committee on International Trade. As that committee’s standing rapporteur for trade and economic relations with the United States, I am personally very satisfied with its content, firstly because it sends a strong message of support for the development of trade and economic relations between the EU and the United States, and secondly because it expresses the Union’s most important offensive and defensive approaches without setting preconditions for opening negotiations.
This is, above all, a political report. It is a sign of Parliament’s backing for the anticipated opening of negotiations on the trade and investment agreement between the EU and the United States with a view to creating a true transatlantic market. The report seeks to answer two crucial questions. Question one: does a trade and investment treaty between the EU and the United States make sense? It is broadly acknowledged that it does. Firstly, all the studies and analyses highlight the enormous growth potential that reciprocal liberalisation of trade and investment would bring for both parties. Secondly, both economies are facing common challenges that can only be properly addressed jointly rather than separately. These include low growth, the dramatic progress of the new emerging economies, particularly China, and the increasing protectionism in some important economies such as Argentina, Brazil, Russia and South Africa. Thirdly, with the failure of the Doha Round concerning a multilateral treaty on the global opening up of trade, the only way forward is a bilateral approach. Question two: will the United States and the European Union be able to reach agreement within a reasonable timeframe? We will begin by saying right now that this will not be an easy task. There are significant differences in interests in certain important areas, particularly agriculture and air and maritime transport, to cite two examples. There are substantial regulatory differences in technical standards concerning motor vehicles, for example. There are entrenched cultural differences, such as the cautious European perspective on food and environmental safety, on the one hand, and the risk-based US perspective on the other. There are several irritating elements, such as genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and meat from descendants of cloned animals, to quote just two examples again. Although considerable, such difficulties are not insurmountable, let alone likely to prevent a successful agreement. Firstly, there must be an agreement, in particular provided it covers all sectors and removes most of the barriers to trade and investment; secondly, the potential advantages of such an agreement are so great that it is worth making the necessary mutual concessions so as to harvest the fruits of substantial liberalisation of trade and investment between the two parties.
I therefore call upon Parliament to support my report so that Parliament’s voice can be heard from the outset and taken into account in Commission and Council initiatives in this field."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples