kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
if the united states imposes restrictive quotas the commission will prepare a fresh implementing regulation that will include some immediate rebalancing on imports from the us based on the list that you are familiar with it but still at a level significantly lower than would be the case if they were to impose duties rather than quotas.
with midterm elections approaching i wish to encourage you to continue to meet with and to convey our concerns on us trade policy to our us interlocutors.
a soft cap of this nature would be less damaging than a strict hard cap.
second voluntary regulatory cooperation between selected regulatory authorities on an ad hoc basis;
and fourth discussions for reciprocal improvements in market access for industrial products including cars and car parts and liberalisation of goods in public procurement.
the commission is ready to take an appropriate safeguard action to protect our own steel market if it is shown to be justified by the investigation that is underway already.
i would like to thank the european parliament for the strong support you have given to the commission so far.
the commission has continued to argue for a full permanent and unconditional exemption from these tariffs while the us has sought to use the threat of trade restrictions as leverage to obtain not only a cap on future eu exports on steel and aluminium but also assurances on the content and goals of a future bilateral agenda to address market access irritants.
mr president the most curious aspect of the eu's trade dispute with the trump administration is its enthusiasm for claiming the moral high ground because the european union is itself built on the ideology of barriers to trade.
not only begging for a frictionless trade deal in such circumstances but she is also paying up forty billion of uk taxpayers' money to further sweeten things. she not only says she won't have a hard border in ireland but she seems to be saying she must avoid doing anything that leads you to think you must impose a hard border in ireland either yet still you kick sand in her face.
indeed it was recently admitted by the german think tank the ifo centre for international economics that the eu has a significantly worse record on tariff barriers than does the us.
i am sad to say i believe his tactics ultimately will bear a lot more fruit than mrs may's desperation to please has done thus far.
in such circumstances can anyone blame mr trump for believing that the way to get a better deal for his country with the eu is to put the thumbscrews on you?
it will be interesting to see whether ultimately the eu takes a kinder stance towards him than it has so far taken towards theresa may who presides over a much larger uk trade deficit with the eu but who has bent over backwards to be accommodating in brexit negotiations
it's okay to face china who are actually violating the principles of wto and doing unfair practices but why is the us imposing tariffs on europe?
mr president first of all i don't understand the right wing of this chamber arguing that when the us is imposing tariffs on steel and aluminium on europe as a response to china then we shouldn't react.
as far as i am aware the united states of america is not yet a member of the european union and nor are more than one hundred other countries around the world and they have to trade with the european union on the basis of external tariff barriers.
what we have to think about is that it would not just make it difficult to import sometimes qualities of steel that you can't always get domestically or from within the eu but also the situation is that domestic mills will grow in power and grow in size.
i started off with british steel stainless and then moved on to a variety of companies across europe avesta and thyssenkrupp being most notable amongst them. what i noticed during that time was the importance of the variety of areas you can import from to be able to service your customers correctly.
i was in the steel industry stainless steel and aluminium for twenty years.
this is coming from voices within the steel industry.
there are cases of dumping on the market most notably from china which is tantamount to trade war.
think about the service sector the stock holder the medium sized business who actually look after the end users who are the people who have to provide the skill and the technological information that goes into it.
but to take it on to a tariff war would be a catastrophic error.
this is not just me speaking.
there must be measures against dumping i think many of us would agree.
let's forget the political differences and focus on the reality of jobs and employment in our economies.
i hope an independent uk will be able to do a tariff free trade deal with the united states of america.
we must be fighting hard for tariff free trade across the world and certainly with the usa.
we are concerned many people about the devastating and paralysing impact of these tariffs because all it would seem you're hearing is the lobby voice of the big manufacturer the big mill.
it's an effort to destroy domestic production wipe them out so that they can then control the market.
tariffs and a trade war with the united states would be absolutely devastating to this market sector.
now you might think that that's a good thing but when competition is beaten away by a huge giant then you lose price competition you lose quality competition you lose many of the aspects that made steel stock holding and service centres such an integral part of the manufacturing economy in the uk and across europe.
it is one of the few debates since i've been here that i can speak from the perspective of pure personal experience.
i understand what president trump is doing.
sure there's a lot we can talk about but not with these tariffs hanging over our heads or with a metaphorically loaded gun pointed at us.
we need to push for permanent exemption and support you in imposing rebalancing measures if the eu is forced to do so.
not only does the invoking of this section hurt our shared ability to solve problems it also hurts the transatlantic relation.
so where we would ideally cooperate to address steel dumping onto the global market the trump administration has used the illegitimate argument of national security to slap tariffs on european steel and aluminium.
i share the commissioner's assessment that these us measures are against wto rules.
what is certainly not appropriate is to pressure the eu into negotiations with the us on broader trade arrangements and to defrost ttip under these circumstances.
contrary to those of liberal democracies.
this is the moment for strong united european leadership that means including all member states leadership towards trade that benefits all and of course this means standing against unfair trade practices and i'm glad to hear some colleagues in this house who used to want to blow up the trade rules themselves now standing here to defend them.
it's very laudable that we join china in the case but we also need to be a bit more proactive on that matter.
we miss a strategy for economy and industry that goes beyond export export export.
we can act now.
because that's one of the problems that we have twenty eight soon twenty seven different european economies that are trying to out compete one another.
we are really really independent.
the other thing that we need to look at is how we become more independent from the moods of a us president or the moods of someone else.
we also have to find answers to an unfair globalisation and make it fair and make it better for people in europe but also in the rest of the world in order to defeat trump and other likeminded people.
it has imperfections sure and needs to be reformed but it's there and it needs to be safeguarded.
so we need to have a common european industrial policy that looks to protect our workers but that also supports a move to a low carbon economy.
he's attacking a rules based system. that's what it's about and that's what is really making the danger in this situation.
it cannot work like this.
but of course trade measures are only part of the answer.
that doesn't mean we need to sit idle while the wto decides in a couple of years or longer about what to do.
that's why we should bring this case to the wto.
mr president the only thing i agree on with the people on the right is that no sensible person wants a trade war but the best way to avoid such a trade war is by strong action and strong words against the illegal measures that president trump is proposing.
our response as laid out by the commissioner is wto compatible it is lawful and it is the right course of action.
if we can stick to this if we can stay strong as the eu we will be demonstrating to our trading partners beyond the united states that we are ready to stand up for the global system we are ready to stand up for free and fair trade and we're ready to stand up for a rules based system.
only by demonstrating that we are ready to stand up for a rules based system can we avoid a downward spiral in terms of open and free trade.
if the eu stands firm we will find allies across the globe and possibly in some strange places like china which also depends on a globalised trading system.
this is not about starting a trade war;
in my view if we want to maintain high standards in europe then we have to require other countries to keep those standards as well.
if we don't do that we're simply involved in a race to the bottom.
so the ideal is that we set high standards here in europe we protect them when it is possible to do that by a tariff at our border and therefore we enable the rest of the world to rise to our higher standards.
for me that's what a constructive trade policy would look like in the case of steel but for other products as well.
if we're going to have high standards in europe then we must require the rest of the world to rise to those standards.
i understand what you are saying and understand that mr trump's actions have sparked much of this.
i don't agree with tariffs;
in the short term what we must do is speak to each other and stop this devastating trade war.
it benefits nobody and we must work together to stop this by organising free trade and having discussions.
you speak about imposing tariffs on imports from around the world and particularly those you consider to be nations that manufacture in a way that damages the climate.
have you considered in this thought the fact and i know this from having worked in steel stockholding myself for many years that by doing this you will drive up the prices all across the eu and the end user price will go through the roof as well and effectively there is a huge risk to employment and jobs across the eu by taking these measures rather than allowing people to buy competitively?
excessive capacities in key sectors and tackle trade issues of mutual interest. instead of acting against each other we should search for solutions together.
steel and aluminium imports from the eu should be permanently exempted from tariffs.
i strongly support the commission in its engagement with the united states in order to avoid a trade war and to improve our trade relations.
mr president madam commissioner we are living uncertain moments which might impact not only the future of the eu us trade relations and the decades of governed global trade system but also the future of the international rule based multilateral system
yes president trump's demands are deepening policy differences between the transatlantic allies on issues ranging from trade to foreign policy.
i consider this to be a misguided action that will mostly affect strategic trading partners such as the uk and the eu both long standing and key security allies of the us and who are also affected by the same unfair practices. i have stressed before that the uk and the eu's exports are not the cause of difficulties facing steel and aluminium producers in the us. the main pressures arise from overcapacity that is rooted in market distortive practices.
therefore it is not fair that our industries pay the price for something that they have not created and it is important that the us recognises this and grants the eu a permanent exception.
i reiterate that it is important to avoid a trade conflict and the eu is prepared to exercise its rights within the framework of the wto.
we must use the multilateral trading system and dispute settlement as a vehicle to ensure third country compliance with international commitments.
we have heard about negotiations on trade concessions in order to secure a permanent exemption from these tariffs.
as a free trade advocate i would welcome any effort to liberalise trade but it is important that it is done in a proportionate and transparent fashion. in case of an agreement it is fundamental to clarify whether these concessions will be permanent or just temporary relief.
that is also why two thousand and eleven will be designated europe china year of youth with the objective of strengthening mutual understanding between european and chinese youth and promoting intercultural dialogue.
eu china relations have grown immensely over the last thirty five years in particular in the economic field.
this focus will continue in two thousand and twelve with the europe china year of intercultural dialogue.
the partnership and cooperation agreement will be discussed in particular its dimension to provide a legal and institutional framework for the further development of our partnership.
it is also important to address misperceptions and to build people to people links.
european businesses are benefiting from continued growth in china but more needs to be done to open the chinese market further and to improve the implementation of rules for example in the area of public procurement and intellectual property rights.
even though significant differences continue it is important that we discuss human rights and the rule of law during the upcoming summit.
to achieve this we must continue to engage and deepen our cooperation.
this will allow us to move the relationship further and on the way address difficult issues for us and for china.
honourable members we all share the goal of china developing further becoming more open and transparent adhering to international standards on human rights welcoming international and european businesses on a level playing field and working together to address global challenges.
we can also build on some concrete positive examples such as the eu china law school.
we want to take a forward looking perspective and act as partners to address global challenges such as climate change the need to maintain open markets and equal access to raw materials international stability and the rule of law. we will look at the role of the various eu china political and sectoral dialogues.
finding common ground with china in order to align their position to our priorities would be an important objective of this summit.
this thirteenth eu china summit is the first under the post lisbon structure.
the summit is particularly important this year as we are celebrating the thirty fifth anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the eu and china and using for the first time the set up provided by the lisbon treaty.
a cultural forum will therefore be held for the first time in the margins of the summit.
madam president as we know the eu is china's largest trade partner and china enjoys our support in their economic reforms but let us not forget that these reforms cannot move forward without reforms in the field of respect for human rights. europe successfully put an end to its nearly fifty year experience with communist totalitarianism that deprived people of their identities distorting the natural course of so many lives. therefore in dialogues with china as well as in the upcoming summit we must continuously focus on
we might have expected to compensate for that deficit in trade by a favourable surplus in the trade in services but the surplus there was a paltry eur five billion.
we must stop importing goods that are destroying our industries and destroying the jobs of our peoples.
madam president in the first three months of last year the united kingdom imported more than four times the value of goods from china than it exported to that country.
in two thousand and nine the eu imported goods worth eur two hundred and fifteen billion from china but exported goods worth only eur eighty two billion.
we are allowing the chinese to destroy the industries and jobs of the nation states of europe by embracing globalism and opening our markets to low wage goods with which we simply cannot compete.
market economy status has always been one of china's key demands to us and there has been some idea of using market economy status as a bargaining chip to push for the eu's offensive interests. however china has never indicated what it would be willing to give us as a counterpayment for market economy
as well. the eu recognises that china has made progress on economic and social rights. we value the achievements of the chinese leadership in improving the economic situation of millions of citizens as illustrated by the way china dealt with the economic
for free. we have increasing problems emerging in china in areas of market access investment opportunities for our companies government procurement and access to raw materials.
rights. in the light of china's global role and its obligations under the universal declaration of human rights there is a strong international expectation that china should live up to internationally recognised standards in all fields of
that is what i think it should really mean.
downturn. however this is not matched by similar progress on civil and political
we would need to see improvement in these areas if we were ever to change our approach to market economy
human rights. we urge china to ratify the international covenant on civil and political rights which would be the most tangible sign of china's commitment to respecting
community. we are concerned that a large number of tibetan intellectuals and writers are currently facing criminal
first in the g twenty europe and china need to build up a strong and effective partnership.
in our relationship with china we pursue our mutual interests but also our values.
in the context of political dialogue and on an equal footing the eu encourages china's transition to an open society based on the rule of law and respect for human rights.
it is about to overtake japan as the world's second economy and is already astonishingly far and away brazil's number one trading partner as china goes truly global. we all know of its massive scramble for natural resources in africa and its shameful backing for the indicted war criminal president bashir in sudan and the mugabe dictatorship in zimbabwe.
i worry about the risk of a proxy war in sudan with china backing the north and the americans the south in the south's quest for independence.
at this summit i do hope that ratification of the iccpr and reform of the notorious laogai labour camps will also be raised.
once piece of good news in my view and i speak as president of the ep taiwan friendship group is that communist china the prc is now treating taiwan with much more respect and there is much more detente across the straits.
i have no doubt that china wants a strong integrated europe.
we therefore need to ensure that the eu has a strong coordinated approach on many important issues for example on trade links and on ipr to help us access the huge and growing chinese market but also on climate change and energy.
energy in particular is a vital issue for both the eu and china.
these two reports represent an attack on that position.
europe's regulators who now control these matters know this perfectly well and that is why they are doing it.
driving trading back onto the exchanges is the means by which the european union asserts its control and limits both criticism and independence.
it dominates europe's financial otc trading and has a central role in foreign exchange and interbank money.
we have included requirements about minimum tick sizes circuit breakers algorithm testing and audit trails all of which i think put it in the necessary scrutiny measures which do not hinder technological innovation but give safeguards and should therefore give retail and long term investors confidence that they are not being subjected to unfair practices in the market place.
the bond markets are the perfect place for this but the market structure in europe needs to support their needs and new transparency requirements need to be properly tailored to encourage investment.
i am disappointed however that we have not yet managed to reach a political agreement to guarantee the highest possible level of investor protection for all consumers in the eu.
one of the most important areas of mifid is that of the extension of transparency requirements to the non equity markets. at a time of unprecedented low growth and economic hardship across europe i am very glad that all groups in the european parliament have come together to give strong support to a text that facilitates and supports investment in the corporate bond markets and the government bond markets.
i can only hope that other member states will shortly follow.
we have however spent a lot of time discussing investor protection and g twenty commitments as well.
as basic as this sounds the only way we can have a properly integrated surveillance system for regulators and market participants in a consolidated tape is if everyone is working to the same clock.
a common misconception is that mifid is about high frequency trading and food speculation.
as banks are facing higher capita requirements businesses need to look elsewhere to raise money and reduce their reliance on bank funding.
i think the european parliament text does this and should inform the still on going council discussions in a similar way.
i hope other groups will support me in the vote tomorrow for the introduction of a requirement to synch all business clocks to one standard.
there is clear evidence that consumers do not trust the independence of the advice if inducements are paid to push a particular product.
on excessive commodity speculation let us end the situation and close the loophole whereby during the famine in the horn of africa the world food programme paid eur fifty million from un aid to one large commodity trader glencore for wheat it ordered to feed the poorest and hungriest population in the world.
in fact this option is encouraging former investment bankers and conservative members of the uk parliament to scrap the ban introduced by the labour government.
across europe consumers have been victims of the mis selling of investment advice because of this perverse incentive in the commission inducement system which creates a bias towards products paying the highest level of commission and away from the best interests of the client or the investor.
the option of a ban will not protect consumers.
mr president i want to thank mr ferber and the shadow rapporteurs for making substantial and innovative improvements to the market and financial instruments directive. but i want to focus in ninety seconds on two minor but highly significant areas where the citizens of europe are demanding that we go further than the compromises that are on the table on investor protection and excessive speculation on the commodity markets.
i urge members to support the ban that has been put down by myself the greens and several other groups.
so a ban is the only way to remove this conflict of interest and give strong protection to the investor.
studies by the german institute of consumer policy show that disclosure and transparency do not work.
i have never had any problems with the notion of fixed position limits as long as in emergencies they can be tightened if cornering happens or varied if a major market position has to be rescued.