WRITTEN QUESTION E-1189/02 by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Further development of the EU-Mexico Agreement.
Date: 2002-04-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Mexico, cooperation agreement (EU), revision of an agreement, trade agreement (EU)

C 52 E/46

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

Transfer of funds for Community interventions in all sectors is the responsibility of the contracting
partners, United Nations agencies and international non-governmental organisations (NGOs). None of the
Commission’s contracting partners, including in the education sector, has mentioned difficulties related to
the sanctions against Al-Barakhat and Community funded projects are not experiencing difficulties due to
lack of financial resources.

Moreover, the Commission does not believe that there is a generalised problem affecting the users and/or
beneficiaries of Community funded projects.

The Commission’s only information on blocked transfers concerns the functioning of its three
5. to 7.
liaison offices, Somaliland, Puntland and Mogadishu. Only in the case of
the latter did Deutsche
Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), who managed the liaison Offices in 2001 on behalf of
the Commission, use Al-Barakhat services.

The blocked transfers concerning the Commission Liaison Office in Mogadishu represent USD 3 393.
The Commission is unable to anticipate when these funds will be retrieved. Nevertheless, a lengthy
procedure would not affect Community co-operation in Somalia in general nor the functioning of the
liaison Office in Mogadishu, in particular.

(1) See page 14.

(2003/C 52 E/054)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1189/02

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Further development of the EU-Mexico Agreement

(26 April 2002)

In its last report on the EU-Mexico Agreement (A5-0036/2001) the European Parliament expressed its
wish to be closely associated with and informed about the evolution of this agreement. Since the
agreement has been in place, Joint Council and Joint Committee meetings have occurred.

Has the Commission introduced any of the recommendations given in the above mentioned report into
the bilateral meetings it is competent for?

Does the Commission envisage introducing a clause on consultation with civil society, similar to the one
foreseen in the draft agreement with Chile?

Has the Commission proposed or is it ready to propose an amendment to the agreement referring to the
Biodiversity Protocol, to the relevant ILO conventions as well as to the OECD Guidelines for Multinational
Enterprises of which both parties are members of?

Is the Commission willing to talk to the Mexican side in order to eliminate the inconsistencies of the
agreement with the Basel and the Rotterdam Conventions?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(24 May 2002)

Referring to the recommendations included in the last Parliament’s report on the Union-Mexico Agreement
(A5-0036/200l), the Commission would like to reassure the Honourable Member that:

(cid:1) The Union-Mexico Global Agreement is sufficiently asymmetric as regards all the economic and co-
operation provisions to take into account the different level of development of Mexico and the Union.

(cid:1) The Decision-making procedures of the Joint Council follow internal laws and procedures. Every time
that the Joint Council is to act, it does so on specific legal bases; should the consultation of Parliament
be envisaged, its views will duly be taken into consideration. Mexico also applies its own internal laws.

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/47

(cid:1) Concerning human rights, the Commission is using the existing mechanisms to follow the situation in
Mexico and in Europe. The political dialogue included in the agenda of the Joint Council and Joint
Committee offers an opportunity to share information on this issue.

At present, the Commission does not envisage any amendment to the Agreement. However, given the
importance that both parties attribute to the dialogue with the civil society, in the Joint Committee of
2 October 2001, the Commission agreed to organise a civil society forum at the end of 2002.

Moreover, the Decisions establishing a Free Trade Area (FTA) between the EC and Mexico include revision
clauses concerning specific products or sectors not included in the first Decision. At the moment of
revising the FTA Decisions, the Commission will take into consideration any new protocol, conventions or
guidelines agreed at multilateral level, which both parties are members of.

The Commission attaches high importance to all multilateral instruments and would like to reassure the
Honourable Member that no bilateral agreement or any interpretation of such will be inconsistent with the
Community multilateral obligations.

(2003/C 52 E/055)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1208/02

by Yves Butel (EDD) to the Commission

(22 April 2002)

Subject: Industrial relocation

In response to the problems encountered by the Member States regarding unemployment, the EU has
created a number of instruments for the achievement of full employment (e.g. the European employment
strategy and employment guidelines, the European Social Fund and the EQUAL initiative).

Complementarily to the impact of globalisation, leading to the relocation of production in the developing
countries and the least developed countries, and the need to conquer new markets, the Member States are
now faced with unfair industrial competition from the applicant countries. A current example is that of the
Whirlpool company, which is planning to transfer part of its activity from Amiens (France) to Poprad
(Slovakia). This transfer would mean 360 direct job losses; in addition, the introduction of subcontracting
would lead to the disappearance of a further 150 jobs.

European integration must be carried out in the interests of the well-being of our peoples, and one of our
priority objectives should be the creation, not the transfer, of wealth. Far from setting existing Member
States against applicant countries, the aim should be to ensure job preservation in the former and
economic development in the latter.

What action does the Commission intend to take to achieve this twofold goal of preserving existing
economic activity, and therefore employment, and creating new forms of economic activity? What action
will it take to place limits on the excessive mobility practised by enterprises in the Member States? Is the
Commission granting aid, especially financial aid, for enterprises from the Member States setting up
production in the applicant countries?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(3 June 2002)

The concept of free and open market economies lies at the very heart of the Union and features as one of
the criteria for membership of the Union outlined at the Copenhagen European Summit in December
1993.

The European Social Model is founded on the premise that economic growth and social cohesion are
mutually reinforcing and that the right balance needs to be struck in order to ensure the dynamic
interaction of economic, employment and social policy. Experience has proved that intensified economic
exchange and cooperation leads to positive results for all involved, contributing to economic prosperity
and the creation of new and more employment.