Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the economic partnership agreement with the ACP regions represents an attempt on the part of the European Union at putting future development cooperation with these states on a new basis, one with better prospects and greater likelihood of success. The intention is that greater economic exchange should combat poverty in the long term and eventually contribute to improving the earnings potential of people who live in the ACP States. By means of regional cooperation on their part, the ACP States are to be put in a position to develop their own functioning markets, which are necessary if there is to be greater trade with us in both goods and services. The mutual market opening, especially the opening of the great European internal market, is intended to enable them to achieve better sales in this market of their existing products, and perhaps also of those of higher quality yet to be developed, and thereby lay the foundations for the development of their national economies. As part of this, the EU is holding out the prospect of generous technical aid to equip the economic and administrative actors with better qualifications. The negotiations that are now getting underway should therefore focus on turning the ACP States into more effective economic partners, enabling social and cultural development, too, to be further accelerated. Mrs Boudjenah's own-initiative report would, I regret to say, need to be further substantially improved by the incorporation of various amendments if the European Union is to negotiate from a stronger position, rather than for that position to be weakened as it is at the moment. In the long term, we have to attempt to reach a realistic accommodation with the interests of the ACP States. There is little point in this if it involves what gleams through at various points in this report – attempts at levelling accusations at the Commission, which has, in recent months, stepped up dialogue with the ACP States and made proposals to them concerning their sustainable development, which have included technical aid. What matters is that the Commission, with our help, is pressing on with the creation of the new ACP economic area. Some better system must replace the outdated and inefficient system of preferences for certain imports. The rules both of the WTO and also the Cotonou Agreement should be applied, but with flexibility, and without their objectives being turned on their heads. In that respect, the position of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy – the Titley Report – is substantially in line with our way of thinking, but we demand that the opening of markets should – as provided for in the WTO rules and in the Cotonou Agreement – concentrate on goods and services. For example, there is no internal market common to both Europe and Africa, which is why there can be no generally free movement of workers either. Our demand is that liberalisation be handled flexibly, with transitional periods, but that liberalisation in important economic sectors should not be ruled out. It is also our view that investment must be well protected in order to prevent this leading to the economic standstill and retrogression now evident in policies in Zimbabwe and other countries. We have nothing against the EU providing technical assistance with assessing the impact of the establishment of free trade and economic regions in Africa, but we vigorously oppose the opening of negotiations being made dependent on this, which could lead to reform of relations between the EU and the ACP States being blocked for a long time. We do not want to develop alternative rules for our relations with the ACP States; we should abide by the WTO's rules and the rules of our own Cotonou Agreement, which should be applied flexibly and with transitional periods. We are therefore proposing amendments that, if accepted, will make it possible for us to support the report, failing which we will vote against it or abstain.

Political group: PPE-DE