Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-10-23-Speech-2-258-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20121023.17.2-258-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am the rapporteur for this procedure, but this is not my report, given that I voted against it in the Committee on International Trade, which I do in fact chair. Having made this statement, I will summarise the various issues involved with as much objectivity as possible. The fundamental issue is whether we should approve the trade agreement with Israel on the mutual recognition of the conformity assessment and acceptance of industrial products, which this Protocol already applies to pharmaceutical products, but which will be extended to all other products subject to conformity assessment and acceptance.
The Committee on International Trade was divided between two irreconcilable camps. The first camp opposed approval on the basis of ensuring consistency in the Union’s external policies with regard to Israel. This camp argued that it does not make sense, on the one hand, to strongly condemn Israel’s policy in the Occupied Territories but, on the other hand, to reinforce trade relations with Israel. It does not make sense to witness the contempt with which Israel defies our condemnation and then give Israel this valuable prize in terms of trade policy. It does not make sense for us to be shocked at the deliberate policy of destroying the conditions for a solution for the two States, as advocated by the Union, and then rehabilitate and encourage Israel in relation to these very same policies.
The second camp in the Committee on International Trade argued that, first, the Protocol is limited to confirming the trade mechanism already set out in the Association Agreement and, second, we should not confuse external policy with foreign trade policy. It was this camp that won in committee, contrary to my draft report, albeit with a small majority. It is now for the plenary and each of us individually to finally decide this fundamental issue.
In addition to this fundamental issue, there are two further issues. The first concerns the territorial scope of application of the Protocol. Unfortunately, the Protocol was not carefully negotiated and is unclear as to whether or not it excludes products originating from the Occupied Territories. This point must be clarified, otherwise we risk crossing one of the European Union’s red lines, namely non-recognition of the Israeli integration of these territories. The proposal to ask the Council for an interpretative statement on this issue is therefore justified. Only the Council can make this statement, as it is the Council, on behalf of the Union, which will be bound by this Protocol. Our role here is simply to consent to the Council decision. As a result, we can only ask the Council to do this. Yet without the Council’s clear commitment, here and now, to make this interpretative statement (and, in this respect, I do not see the Council here), our vote on this issue is irrelevant and ineffective. However, we must vote on this interpretative statement, or this request for an interpretative vote.
The third issue is connected with Article 3 of the draft decision of the Council, which concluded the Protocol on behalf of the Union. In that article, the Council authorises the Commission to amend the Protocol, including with regard to beneficiary products, without any subsequent approval by Parliament or the Council. This represents authorisation to amend an international protocol, on which we are now voting. However, the Council still wants to keep control over these amendments through an ad hoc committee, whereas Parliament will from now on have no role in the amendment of the Protocol on which we are now voting.
This poses three problems. First, does it make sense to authorise the Commission to amend a trade agreement so substantively? Second, what is the legal basis in the Treaty for the ad hoc committee proposed by the Council to monitor the Commission in this respect. Three, and with this I will conclude, is it acceptable for Parliament to be ignored in the delegation of power, in the control of the exercise of delegated power, and in the assessment of amendments to the Protocol that the Commission will negotiate with Israel? The Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament has already said that it will ask for this procedure to be referred back to committee so that this issue can be considered. This is an important issue and, in my opinion, we cannot allow a precedent to be created in this respect."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples