Vollständiger Text 
Verfahren : 2013/0103(COD)
Werdegang im Plenum
Entwicklungsstadium in Bezug auf das Dokument : A8-0182/2018

Eingereichte Texte :


Aussprachen :

PV 29/05/2018 - 21
CRE 29/05/2018 - 21

Abstimmungen :

PV 30/05/2018 - 13.3
Erklärungen zur Abstimmung

Angenommene Texte :


Ausführliche Sitzungsberichte
Dienstag, 29. Mai 2018 - Straßburg Überprüfte Ausgabe

21. Schutz gegen gedumpte und subventionierte Einfuhren aus nicht zur Europäischen Union gehörenden Ländern (Aussprache)
Video der Beiträge

  President. – The next item is the recommendation for second reading from the Committee on International Trade on the Council position at first reading with a view to the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union and Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union (05700/1/2018 – C8—0168/2018 – 2013/0103(COD)) (Rapporteur: Christofer Fjellner (A8-0182/2018))


  Christofer Fjellner, Rapporteur. – Mr President, I must say that this is a rather special moment for me: I have been living with European trade defence legislation for rather a long time now. Back in 2006, when Peter Mandelson first presented his green paper, I started writing my first report on behalf of this House on how to reform the trade defence instrument. That wasn’t really a success, either for me or for Peter Mandelson, I must say. But here we are now, just about to vote on the ghost proposal that we have been working on and waiting for a vote on for more than five years now. This is actually the first major reform of European trade defence instruments in 25 years. A lot has changed in the world during those 25 years – global supply chains, the rise of China – so this is long overdue, and it feels good to be able to close the books on this thing.

I would like to start by thanking all my shadows, who have worked on this for all this time, and I’d like to thank the Commission and both the Maltese and Estonian presidencies in the Council for their hard work finding a compromise, because this is truly a compromise. This is what needs to be a compromise, in what might be one of the most controversial areas of trade policy, where different interests so clearly stand against each other: European producers on the one hand, who want tariff protection from what they see as unfair trading practices; on the other hand, importers and consumers who, in the end, have to bear the cost of these tariffs. For every job protected by anti-dumping duties, we always run the risk of potentially threatening some job in another part of the economy. But we have to recognise that these instruments are the second best option when we don’t have international rules for competition. They should be a safety valve for us, giving us the possibility to push for further trade liberalisation, and not – as the US is using these tools today – as a tool for protectionism to stop liberalisation.

The three important things that we have done in this report involve trying to give something to all stakeholders. The first is to see to it that it’s possible to have higher tariffs under certain circumstances – something I know that producers appreciate. We also added predictability as the second point: we guarantee that you get prior notice three weeks before tariffs are introduced, so that anybody that imports something knows it won’t be more expensive when it arrives compared to when they bought it, and that’s important for importers. Third – something that’s important for all stakeholders – is that the investigation periods are shorter, because the mere threat of tariffs will affect trade and cost money.

Now we leave this in the hands of the Commission, and you will have to implement this. I will just make some pleas: first, obey the WTO rules in every detail when implementing this, because we cannot, at a time when others don’t respect the WTO, follow that example. We have to play by the rules. Second, don’t target the environment with these tools: too many duties today are targeted at environmentally friendly goods such as biodiesel, ethanol, solar panels and, soon, electrical bicycles. Third, don’t target value-added goods produced in Europe. Think about the global value chains. Sometimes we might earn more with ‘designed in Europe’ than with ‘made in Europe’. Last but not least, think about the overall interests of the European economy: it might be more important to do a good Union interests test to see that everyone wins than to do just one thing. Finally, I have never met anybody that has claimed to be a protectionist in this process, but I have met a lot of people that want to protect XYZ. Be careful: don’t listen to the sirens; never use these tools for protectionism.


  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I wish to thank Mr Fjellner very much for his kind advice. Thank you also, Mr Fjellner, for the work that you have done together with the shadow rapporteurs on this very important piece of legislation. As you alluded to, there have been long and numerous negotiations. The co—legislators have now finally found a way to deal on the modernisation of trade defence instruments that far exceeds expectations. I think it is a good outcome. There have been many contributions, and these will now be part of our new legislation.

The Council has also, together with the European Parliament, played an important part. You thanked the Estonian Presidency and the Maltese Presidency. I would like to add the Slovak Presidency, which actually did some work there as well, to bring us all together.

This modernisation is a success. We have managed to find concrete improvements for all stakeholders – producing industry, importers and downstream users of imported merchandise alike. Also, thanks to the European Parliament, workers can now be represented by their trade unions in investigations and the position of SMEs has been strengthened.

I see three key messages in this modernisation. First, it will be more economically effective. The primary purpose of TDI measures is to remove the injury that the EU industry encounters due to unfair trade. The new rules enable us to do that better because we can factor in elements such as necessary investment, research and development. Moreover, there will be a minimum target profit of 6% and this ensures that the calculations reflect economic reality.

The EU will take a more assertive stance against trade distortive measures by our trading partners. If they maintain raw material distortions or provide subsidies that go against the WTO, we can respond with higher duties – and I fully agree that the European Union has a specific responsibility always to follow WTO rules, not least in times like now.

The EU industry should have access to trade defence instruments without fear of retaliation in other markets. In such special circumstances, with a threat of retaliation, the Commission can start an investigation on its own initiative. However, according to the new rules, the industry is then requested to cooperate with the proceeding.

Secondly, this is good for EU business. The modernisation has significantly increased transparency and predictability. From now on, the Commission will announce duties three weeks before they enter into force. This gives the markets time to adapt to the new situation, and at the same time the law ensures that this possibility to adapt cannot be abused for stockpiling.

The new anti—dumping investigations will indeed, as the rapporteur said, be faster. Provisional measures will normally apply seven months after initiation, and that is two months earlier than today. We will facilitate the access of SMEs in the form of a TDI helpdesk that provides information but also addresses language barriers and we will reimburse importers where they have paid duties during an expiry review that results in terminating the measures.

Third, thanks to the modernisation, we have strengthened our EU values in our trade defence. We are committed, as you know, to an open rule—based trading system. Trade has to be fair; the role of TDI is to ensure this. Trade defence measures are not a punishment, but they should re—establish fair competition. At the same time, such measures should be balanced and proportionate. I think this has all been strengthened in our proposal.

We have in the European Union high environmental and social standards and we are committed to further improvement. The TDI modernisation ensures that the potential higher costs which EU business incurs by applying these high standards are fully taken into account, and this includes future costs that will occur during the lifetime of measures such as the one resulting from our strengthened emission trading system.

The Commission will consider third countries’ action on multilateral environmental agreements and core ILO Conventions before accepting undertakings by exporting producers. Unfair trade is threatening jobs in the European Union. Trade unions representing these workers now have full access to the investigation as interested parties and can prepare complaints jointly with our industry.

All these elements are concrete improvements of our current TDI system. Together with the new calculation methodology, we have done our homework. We stand united to defend our common interests at all levels in the light of external challenges, and we can do so thanks very much to the work that you have done.


  Tokia Saïfi, au nom du groupe PPE. – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, je voudrais tout d’abord remercier mon collègue Christofer Fjellner pour le travail qu’il a effectué sur ce sujet extrêmement important.

La concurrence internationale a fortement évolué ces vingt dernières années sans que nous n’adaptions nos instruments de défense commerciale. Il était donc plus qu’urgent de renforcer l’arsenal de nos entreprises pour défendre une concurrence juste et loyale.

La modernisation à laquelle nous sommes parvenus représente une avancée et contribuera à la mise en place d’instruments de défense commerciale plus forts, plus rapides et plus accessibles, notamment pour que nos PME puissent les utiliser.

Je tiens également à saluer la prise en compte des critères environnementaux et sociaux dans l’utilisation des nouveaux instruments. Par contre, je regrette que, malgré notre demande, la règle du droit moindre soit maintenue de manière générale. Seules certaines exceptions permettront d’imposer des taxes plus importantes en cas de dumping.

Nous attendons désormais une entrée en vigueur rapide de cette réforme et nous serons attentifs à sa mise en œuvre.

Cet accord arrive d’ailleurs à point nommé. Il accompagnera la nouvelle méthode antidumping que nous avons adoptée il y a quelques mois.


  Inmaculada Rodríguez-Piñero Fernández, en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, mis felicitaciones al ponente de este informe. El sistema de defensa comercial de la Unión se basa en las reglas de la OMC, que permiten a sus miembros responder ante prácticas desleales de países exportadores, restableciendo la igualdad de condiciones y evitando las distorsiones del mercado que producen. Pero el mundo —es verdad— ha cambiado mucho y el tiempo ha demostrado que las normas actuales son insuficientes e ineficaces.

Tras años de bloqueo por parte del Consejo, la verdad es que es una excelente noticia que la Unión Europea modernice sus instrumentos de defensa comercial, aunque sinceramente, a los socialistas nos hubiera gustado ir más lejos. Pero es verdad, nunca fue tan necesario contar con instrumentos eficaces para hacer frente a las prácticas comerciales desleales que atentan contra nuestra industria y provocan importantes pérdidas de empleo que no se justifican por una menor competitividad, sino por prácticas desleales que existen —no lo olvidemos— porque se consienten.

Y la política está para cambiar las cosas. Por eso es tan importante la reforma que mañana aprobaremos y que nos permitirá contar con unos instrumentos más eficaces, al imponer unos derechos antidumping y antisubvenciones más elevados, incorporar el margen mínimo de beneficio del 6 % —que me parece un elemento muy importante— y agilizar los procedimientos, aunque creo que en esto se debería conseguir avanzar más. También es importante lo que ha señalado la comisaria: reforzar la transparencia y la predictibilidad.

Y valoro muy positivamente que, gracias a la posición que hemos defendido en nuestro Grupo y que ha sido apoyada por todos y defendida por la Comisión, se incorporen en los nuevos reglamentos los mayores costes sociales, medioambientales y laborales que soportan nuestras empresas —o que afortunadamente tenemos en ellas— y que se tengan en cuenta a la hora de calcular el dumping. Y también me parece muy importante que los sindicatos adquieran la condición de parte interesada y puedan solicitar la iniciativa. En lugar de guerras comerciales, reglas justas y leales para evitar la competencia.


  Sander Loones, namens de ECR-Fractie. – Voorzitter, we zien dat er in een razend tempo nieuwe, innovatieve producten worden ontwikkeld. In de Europese Unie zijn we daar soms te zelfverzekerd over. We voelen ons soms onkwetsbaar, alsof alles in Europa wordt uitgevonden. Dat is natuurlijk niet juist. Dat is niet zo.

Bovendien kunnen we zien dat het tempo zelfs nog hoger kan. Dat is zeker het geval. In een aantal autoritair geleide regimes met expansiedrang zie je dat het tempo van productie nog kunstmatig kan worden opgedreven. Het is dus echt naïef te denken dat iedereen de spelregels respecteert. Daarom moeten wij ons wapenen tegen die globale uitdagingen.

En hoe, is dan de vraag. Ik zie twee manieren. Eén, door in gevoelige sectoren directe buitenlandse investeringen tegen het licht te houden. We hebben daarover gisteren gestemd in de Commissie internationale handel.

Twee, door wat wij hier vanavond bediscussiëren: door onze handelsbeschermingsinstrumenten te gaan moderniseren. Dat is echt nodig om onze Europese industrie te gaan beschermen tegen oneerlijke handelspraktijken en tegen zwaar verlies van banen en welvaart. Laat ons daarbij niet vervallen in plat protectionisme, maar de uitdaging wel aangaan.


  Marietje Schaake, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, after dramatic changes in global developments as well as trade flows, it is high time our trade defence instruments are reformed to be fit for purpose. As Christofer Fjellner said, it has been a long time coming. We, in Europe, remain open for business and committed to rules-based trade without being naive or defenceless vis—a—vis blatant violations that cheat our citizens. We need one method to assess substantial market distortions, whoever may be suspected of engaging in such unfair practices. Of course, we must be WTO compliant and lead by example in the trade measures that we apply ourselves, and I’m glad we have positioned the EU properly by this modernisation. This house has focused on the transparency, predictability and efficiency of the new rules, and has zoomed in on the particular needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. Yes, we have considered importers and exporters and not just listened to the voices that shouted the loudest. It’s essential that Europe leads in promoting rules-based trade globally, ensuring that trade rules and trade flows benefit everyone – again, without being naive. This package fits well with the discussion about screening foreign direct investments; it’s really the other side of trade defence instruments. We need protection without protectionism, and I think we show how it can be done.


  Molly Scott Cato, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, even a few years ago, it seemed impossible that the EU would use trading measures to penalise those who are damaging the environment and exploiting workers. Today, we are delighted to say that the EU will include social and environmental standards within its anti-dumping measures. This is a huge win for the Greens and our supporters after years of campaigning and a historic step by the EU as the first member of the WTO to do this.

This will now mean that goods produced with low labour standards or those that are harmful to the environment, such as the mining industry, will face investigation of their environmental impacts. If they have cut standards to cut costs, this will affect their ability to export. The next step is for the Commission to adopt a clear and transparent method for measuring these impacts so that the anti-dumping policy can come into effect. While the EU is making progress on trade policy, Brexit Britain looks weaker and more isolated than ever. As we saw with the Trump steel tariffs fiasco, two visits by Trade Minister Fox to the US left him empty handed. The US and other trading giants would laugh in the face of a lone United Kingdom that tries to protect its industry from tariffs or dumping.

We need to stay part of a strong and democratic trading bloc if we are to have any hope of using trade as a tool to protect our workers and the natural world around us.


  Helmut Scholz, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Vielen Dank, Christofer! Ich meine, mit unserem Antidumpinginstrumentarium haben wir wirklich einen wichtigen neuen Durchbruch in der EU-Gesetzgebung erreicht. Die Europäische Union ist jetzt der erste große Akteur weltweit, der bei der Festlegung eines fairen Preisniveaus im internationalen Vergleich auch die sozialen und ökologischen Kosten berücksichtigt. Sicherlich ein Kompromiss, nicht alles ist aufgegangen, aber ein entscheidender Schritt ist getan. Damit kann nun endlich gegen Sozialdumping und gegen Umweltdumping vorgegangen werden. Ursprünglich war das eine zentrale Forderung vor allem von Linken und Gewerkschaftern. In der globalisierten Wirtschaft von heute ist das nun aber auch zur Forderung Nummer eins in der Unternehmenswelt geworden – ich finde, eine wichtige Erfahrung.

Jetzt müssen wir als Europäische Union aktiv und energisch auf unsere internationalen Partner zugehen, um dieses Thema erfolgreich in die multilateralen Foren zu tragen. Aufgabe bleibt es, im Welthandel den Regulierungsrahmen zu entwickeln, um Ausbeutung von Arbeitskräften und Raubbau an der Natur und unserem Klima zu verhindern. Und dazu ist auch die bereits erwähnte Transparenz und Vorhersehbarkeit der Positionen und internationalen Regeln notwendig. Zu diesem Zweck hoffe ich, Frau Kommissarin, dass es mit der Erfahrung der EU-Gesetzgebung nun auch gemeinsam gelingt, das WTO-Recht entsprechend zu modernisieren und auf die Höhe der Anforderungen des einundzwanzigsten Jahrhundert zu heben.


  France Jamet, au nom du groupe ENF. – Monsieur le Président, mes chers collègues, face aux politiques commerciales agressives, en particulier de la part de la Chine, dont nous venons de parler, dans un monde où l’ultralibéralisme globalisé prime toute forme de protectionnisme raisonné, la nécessité d’une procédure antidumping était évidemment indispensable de la part de de l’Europe. Sur ce point, je crois que les États-Unis nous ont clairement démontré que la défense commerciale doit être déterminée, sans crainte de froisser ses concurrents.

Ce n’est pas le message véhiculé par ces mesures. L’absence de fermeté à l’égard d’éventuels auteurs d’infraction n’aura aucun effet dissuasif. Aucun pays ne se montrerait aussi bienveillant à notre égard dans la situation inverse. Enfin, ce texte, vous l’avez dit, est adossé aux règles de l’OMC que plus personne, hors Bruxelles, ne semble vouloir respecter, que ce soit les États-Unis, que ce soit la Chine ou encore l’Inde.

Pour s’affirmer sur la scène internationale, pour une véritable politique en faveur de la souveraineté des économies nationales, face à l’agressivité commerciale grandissante de certains pays, la meilleure des défenses reste la voie que Mme Malmström qualifie de facile, c’est la voie courageuse du protectionnisme.


  Κωνσταντίνος Παπαδάκης (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, τα μέτρα εμπορικού προστατευτισμού της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης είναι εργαλεία εξασφάλισης πλεονεκτημάτων στους μονοπωλιακούς ομίλους που εκπροσωπεί, στην αντιπαράθεσή της με τους ανταγωνιστές τους, ιδίως, τις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες, την Κίνα και την Ρωσία. Απελευθέρωση του εμπορίου και προστατευτισμός συνυπάρχουν. Χρησιμοποιούνται εναλλάξ, πότε σαν όπλο κατά των ανταγωνιστών, ποτέ σαν όχημα διείσδυσης στις αγορές, στις πλουτοπαραγωγικές πηγές, στους δρόμους μεταφοράς τους. Πρόσφατα επεισόδια αυτού του ανταγωνισμού οι δασμοί από τις ΗΠΑ στην Κίνα και αντίστροφα, οι νέες κυρώσεις κατά της Ρωσίας, οι δασμοί των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών, το Brexit και οι διαπραγματεύσεις, η συμφωνία με το Ιράν και τα αντίμετρα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Όσο οξύνεται ο οικονομικός πόλεμος, μεγαλώνει και ο κίνδυνος συνέχισής του σε πεδία στρατιωτικών μαχών. Μεγάλοι χαμένοι είναι οι λαοί που πληρώνουν με σκληρή εκμετάλλευση και αιματοκύλισμα τους ιμπεριαλιστικούς ανταγωνισμούς για τα κέρδη. Το συμφέρον τους δεν είναι να διαλέξουν ιμπεριαλιστή, είναι η ανατροπή της καπιταλιστικής βαρβαρότητας για να πάρουν την οικονομία και την εξουσία στα χέρια τους.


  Salvatore Cicu (PPE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ringrazio la signora Commissaria e il relatore. Sono passati cinque anni dalla proposta della Commissione, e io dico che finalmente siamo arrivati alla conclusione con il voto di domani. Un dossier che finalmente vede la luce e questo perché è stato voluto fortemente dal Parlamento, dalla stessa Commissione, e tenuto conto appunto dei veti che sono stati posti soprattutto dal Consiglio, credo che sia un risultato centrale e importante.

Soprattutto nel contesto in cui viviamo, le difficoltà di un sistema internazionale globale, ma soprattutto facendo rilevare che l'Unione europea si pone come riferimento, come modello che realizza delle regole che sono conformi all'interno dell'Organizzazione mondiale del commercio e che realizzano aspetti straordinariamente rilevanti.

La tutela sì, la difesa sì, ma in un processo di liberalizzazione, ma anche, soprattutto, dedicato a un interesse, quello dei piccoli e medi imprenditori, quello della piccola industria, un accesso più facilitato, tempi ridotti, l'applicazione del dazio minimo anche in alcuni casi, c'è una percentuale del 6 % che viene realizzata rispetto all'applicazione dei costi che si realizzano.

Insomma, un quadro complessivamente straordinario ed efficace, quindi ringrazio il lavoro del relatore e della Commissione.


  Emmanuel Maurel (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, il ne s’agit pas ce soir d’un débat de type «protectionnisme contre libre-échange», mais plutôt d’une discussion sur la nature loyale ou déloyale de la concurrence internationale et de la façon dont nous, Européens, nous nous faisons respecter dans les échanges commerciaux, car c’est bien de cela qu’il s’agit: se faire respecter dans les échanges commerciaux.

Jusqu’à présent, notamment avec la législation de 1995 et la timide et craintive règle du droit moindre, cela n’était pas totalement le cas, au point que nous laissions penser que nous étions prêts à des accommodements raisonnables avec des partenaires qui, eux, n’hésitaient pas à recourir à des sanctions très dures face à des pratiques abusives.

Le texte actuel améliore la règle du droit moindre, parce que soit on l’écarte, soit on revoit le mode de calcul ou son assiette. Il améliore aussi la situation parce qu’il intègre dans notre législation les engagements internationaux en matière sociale et environnementale. Enfin, le rapporteur l’a dit, le texte améliore les conditions en place, notamment les délais dans lesquels la Commission peut ouvrir une enquête antidumping.

Ce texte est donc un progrès, modeste, mais un progrès quand même, que nous prenons comme tel.


  Bronis Ropė (Verts/ALE). – Gerbiamas Pirmininke, šiandieną svarstoma antidempingo ir subsidijų reglamentų peržiūra gali tapti kokybinio Europos Sąjungos išorės politikų virsmo pradžia. Pagaliau turime teisės aktą, reikalaujantį skaičiuojant antidempingo mokesčius įvertinti socialinius ir aplinkosauginius standartus. Ne paslaptis, kad kai kurios trečiosios šalys pigesnę produkciją gali pasiūlyti vien dėl to, kad moka elgetiškus atlyginimus, o gamybos atliekomis teršia mūsų bendrus namus – žemę. Nuo to kenčia ne tik aplinka ar sąžiningų atlyginimų negaunantys darbuotojai trečiosiose šalyse, nuo to kenčiame ir mes, europiečiai, tiek dėl prastėjančios aplinkos, įskaitant klimato kaitą, tiek dėl vis labiau besitraukiančios Europos pramonės ir iš nuolatinės krizės būsenos neišbrendančio žemės ūkio. Esu įsitikinęs, kad priėmus šias taisykles ir jas tinkamai įgyvendinus mes žengsime esminį žingsnį link kokybiškai geresnės, švaresnės ir sąžiningesnės pasaulio ekonomikos.


  Danilo Oscar Lancini (ENF). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, dichiarare l'imposizione di nuovi dazi con tre settimane di anticipo è un vantaggio eccessivo perché viola la concorrenza.

Questa riforma poco coraggiosa è pure fuori contesto storico. Oggi gli Stati Uniti d'America, con Trump, ci danno una visione concreta e reale: per combattere chi attua la concorrenza sleale occorrono sanzioni severe. Questa Europa piegata alle lobby delle grandi multinazionali ha dimostrato ancora una volta di temere la democrazia. Questo allarme viene da chi subisce la concorrenza di chi sfrutta il lavoro, non essendo soggetto né alla nostra tassazione né alle nostre rigide e costose norme ambientali e sociali.

Questo è uno dei grandi fallimenti dell'Unione. La scelta che avete intrapreso è chiara: privilegiate i grandi operatori che scelgono di produrre lontano, licenziando a casa nostra, rispetto a chi dà lavoro e sviluppo ai nostri territori. Mi sarei aspettato, inoltre, che il nostro rispettabile Presidente della Repubblica, con un gesto d'orgoglio, avesse alzato la testa, anziché porsi prono a questa Europa impicciona. Il popolo italiano non accetterà più la slealtà di questa Europa, e con la democrazia vi ripagherà di queste ingiustizie.


  Dobromir Sośnierz (NI). – Panie Przewodniczący! Ta bitwa z dumpingiem to jest zbędna walka z pozornym problemem. Jeśli ktoś chce nam sprzedawać coś poniżej kosztów, czyli ze stratą, a my będziemy mu sprzedawać z zyskiem, to po prostu my w ten sposób się bogacimy, a on pracuje dla nas za darmo. To jest dla nas czysty zysk. Jeśli ktoś będzie tak robił przez dłuższy czas, to po prostu się nie dorobi.

W dłuższej perspektywie bilans handlu międzynarodowego musi bowiem wyjść na zero, ponieważ żeby coś komuś sprzedać, to trzeba tyle samo mniej więcej od niego kupić. W przeciwnym przypadku taki handel międzynarodowy szybko by się skończył. Jeśli więc ktoś chce również niszczyć swoje środowisko po to, żeby dać nam tanie towary, to powinniśmy się z tego cieszyć, bo my nie musimy dzięki temu niszczyć naszego środowiska. My jesteśmy parlamentem Europy, a nie całego świata, i powinniśmy dbać przede wszystkim o nasze środowisko. To jest tak samo niemądry pomysł, jak odmawianie sobie darmowego obiadu po to, żeby chronić swoje miejsce pracy w kuchni.


  Jarosław Wałęsa (PPE). – Mr President, the European Union was slightly ahead of global developments with respect to trade tensions between liberals and protectionists. The debate we had dealt with the very same tensions – how to accommodate the two competing forces and interests – but I think we struck the right balance. In exchange for a number of importer—friendly provisions, we also strengthened protection against dumped imports.

The key provision in this package is mainly the removal of the lesser duty rule in the event of structural raw material distortions. The European Union needs to do more to combat dual pricing, regulated prices and subsidisation on third markets. Removing the lesser duty rule in such a situation is the first step in a more muscular policy. There are a number of on-going proceedings that involve such distortions, and I do hope that the European Commission will seek to use these rules for making sure that our policies are properly implemented.


  Karoline Graswander-Hainz (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Es ist höchste Zeit, dass die europäische Seite auf die Bedrohung von gedumpten Produkten angemessen reagiert. Erfreulich ist, dass sich auch der Rat nach jahrelangen Diskussionen endlich einigen konnte. Im Europäischen Parlament haben wir ja bereits 2014 eine Position dazu verabschiedet. Dass auch umwelt- und arbeitsrechtliche Standards sowie freie Lohnverhandlungen und die ILO-Kernarbeitsnormen in Zukunft bei der Kalkulierung von Dumping berücksichtigt werden, ist vor allem auf den Druck der Sozialdemokratinnen und Sozialdemokraten zurückzuführen. Unsere Aufgabe ist es, den besten Schutz für die europäische Industrie und den europäischen Arbeitsmarkt zu garantieren, denn immerhin geht es um 200 000 Jobs von Stahlarbeiterinnen und Stahlarbeitern in Europa, die durch gedumpte Importe aus China bedroht sind.

Wir müssen den wettbewerbsverzerrenden Billigimporten rasch ein Ende setzen. Mit dieser Gesetzgebung ist dies nun möglich. Herzlichen Glückwunsch an das Verhandlungsteam!


  Steeve Briois (ENF). – Monsieur le Président, l’Union européenne, qui était présentée comme un bouclier pour défendre nos intérêts commerciaux, s’avère impuissante dans cette tâche. Comme en témoigne ce texte, qui n’apporte qu’une solution minimaliste pour se protéger de la concurrence déloyale, la seule nouveauté, c’est la possibilité d’appliquer des droits de douane pour compenser le préjudice subi, et encore, seulement sur les matières premières, et seulement si la distorsion entraîne un écart de coût de production de plus de 17 %. Autant dire que cela est totalement inefficace pour corriger les dégâts de la mondialisation sauvage que vous nous avez imposée.

Comment pouvez-vous d’ailleurs affirmer vouloir lutter contre le dumping social si, dans le même temps, vous ouvrez grandes les portes de l’Europe aux importations massives par le biais du CETA ou encore de l’accord de libre-échange avec le Mercosur?

Pour lutter contre la concurrence déloyale, vous devez stopper immédiatement les négociations avec le Mercosur et vous devez surtout redonner aux nations la liberté de fixer souverainement leurs droits de douane ainsi que leurs quotas d’importations.


  Jude Kirton-Darling (S&D). – Mr President, this is a bittersweet moment for me. Finally, tomorrow we will vote on this all-important reform of EU trade defence instruments that will help protect thousands of jobs all across Europe. Bittersweet, because we had to wait five years to get here, because my home Member State did everything that it could to block the reform. Bittersweet, because Tory ministers stood on the beach in Redcar wringing their hands and claiming that they were blocked by EU rules from protecting our steelworkers from dumped under-priced steal, while they blocked this legislation which could have helped. Bittersweet, because the EU was blamed in the referendum, leading to high leave votes from all our steel communities. Bittersweet, because now we have a job to get anything near as good in our UK trade remedies legislation post-Brexit. This is a bittersweet moment for Labour MEPs in the European Parliament.


  Neena Gill (S&D). – Mr President, I just wanted to say that this is a very timely report, given the global debate and tensions we have on trade issues. Having effective trade defence instruments (TDIs) is imperative because not only do we have an aggressive approach from China, which appears to be playing a global monopoly game in acquiring infrastructure and energy plants at strategic locations, but we also have an unpredictable President in the White House who changes global trade rules on a whim.

For me, the TDIs should have been more ambitious, but I recognise that they are a first step that factors in social and environmental standards when determining trade dumping. This is exactly what industry in my region, the West Midlands, wants.

The second want is that the EU duties should be higher because, at the moment, they have said that they’re not high enough to be a deterrent when it comes to dumping steel or ceramics. Therefore, it’s regrettable that the UK Government voted against this deal in the Council and the vote goes against what UK industry has been lobbying for.


Catch-the-eye procedure


  Κώστας Μαυρίδης (S&D). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, θα είμαι στην ώρα μου αυτή τη φορά. Συγχαρητήρια στον εισηγητή και στους σκιώδεις εισηγητές. Δεν πρέπει να ξεχνάμε ότι αυτό είναι ένα συμβιβαστικό κείμενο, αλλά ο στόχος υπήρξε εξαρχής φιλόδοξος: ένα ισχυρό εμπορικό σύστημα που βασίζεται σε κανόνες που προωθούν το θεμιτό εμπόριο και η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση να μιλά με μία φωνή. Άλλωστε, όπως γράφτηκε στο κείμενο, η κοινή εμπορική πολιτική, όπως προτείνεται από τη στρατηγική «Εμπόριο για όλους», είναι μια πολιτική που βασίζεται σε αξίες. Ως εδώ πολύ καλά. Δυστυχώς, όμως, η εφαρμογή των κανόνων διεθνούς εμπορίου μέσω δικαστικών μηχανισμών του Παγκόσμιου Οργανισμού Εμπορίου δεν υπήρξε πάντα αμερόληπτη ούτε αποτελεσματική. Για παράδειγμα, η Τουρκία συνεχίζει να παραβιάζει τους κανόνες διεθνούς εμπορίου εναντίον συγκεκριμένου κράτους μέλους της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, και το γνωρίζετε, κυρία Επίτροπε, πολύ καλά.


  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, επιτέλους η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση αποφάσισε να ξυπνήσει από τον λήθαργο, αποφάσισε να ενεργοποιήσει εργαλεία εμπορικής άμυνας. Γιατί αυτή τη στιγμή γίνεται, βεβαίως, μια στρέβλωση του ανταγωνισμού. Υπάρχουν συγκεκριμένες χώρες – η Κίνα, η Ινδία, η Τουρκία – οι οποίες κυριολεκτικά στρεβλώνουν τον ανταγωνισμό, ακολουθούν αθέμιτες πρακτικές, ακολουθούν πρακτικές ντάμπινγκ. Φυσικά, υπάρχουν και πάρα πολλές χώρες οι οποίες δεν τηρούν τα συγκεκριμένα κριτήρια που έχουν σχέση με την περιβαλλοντική προστασία, με την εφαρμογή της εργατικής νομοθεσίας, με την εφαρμογή της προστασίας της υγιεινής και ασφάλειας των εργαζομένων. Επιπλέον, πρέπει να υπάρξουν μέτρα προκειμένου να μην μπορούν να γίνονται ξένες επενδύσεις σε τομείς στρατηγικής σημασίας μέσα στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Εάν όλα αυτά πραγματικά εφαρμοστούν, τότε μπορούμε να ελπίζουμε ότι κάτι, ενδεχόμενα, θα γίνει.


(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, thank you for this debate. I think it is a reflection of the very constructive approach that the rapporteur and all the shadows have had in this very long journey. I have listened very carefully and I hope that we will continue to engage on this, for instance, in our exchange on the annual Trade Defence Instrument (TDI) report with the International Trade (INTA) Committee. The debate has pointed out many of the improvements to our trade defence instruments, and if you vote yes tomorrow – which I sincerely hope you will – this will now enter into force on 8 June, and we will thereby be much better equipped for future challenges.

The European Union pursues a free and fair trade agenda. We want to have open markets at home and abroad. This work is reflected in the work we do in our free trade agreements and also in our work to try to strengthen and to reform the World Trade Organization (WTO). That is why we need these tools: to make sure that we can compete on a fair basis. We stand committed, as I said, to a rule-based system and we will continue to pursue an update of the WTO rulebooks in order to ensure that continued effectiveness of the WTO rules against fair trade – notably in the area of subsidies – is addressed as well. So thank you very much for this debate.


  Christofer Fjellner, Rapporteur. – Mr President, I would like to thank Commissioner Malmström and my colleagues for their kind words. I hope that colleagues who know where I come from politically on this question can appreciate that I have tried to be an honest broker in this process. I don’t like tariffs – any tariffs at all – and let me just personally leave you with a scenario to ponder upon, because it might be 25 years until the next time we discuss this here, so we will have the time to ponder upon a response. Imagine that the Chinese leave us with 500 million tons of steel at the European border for free, just for us to pick up. What is the rational European reaction to that? Is it to say, ‘Wow, great, let’s build cheap cars for our citizens and maybe even export them at a profit to China’? Or is it the Russian reaction, which is to get angry, send it back and say, ‘If you try to sell us more steel, we will charge ourselves even more for that steel’? I know what my response would have been if I were a European steel producer. I would have gone for the first option, but if the responsibility had been jobs and wealth in Europe, I am not so sure. Until the next time we discuss this topic, I hope everybody has thought carefully about what would be best for Europe in that case.


  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Wednesday, 30 May 2018.

Letzte Aktualisierung: 21. September 2018Rechtlicher Hinweis - Datenschutzbestimmungen