Li jmiss 
 Test sħiħ 
L-Erbgħa, 30 ta' Jannar 2019 - Brussell Edizzjoni riveduta

23. L-istat tan-negozjati kummerċjali Stati Uniti-UE (dibattitu)
Vidjow tat-taħditiet

  President. – The next item is the debate on the Commission statement on the state of the US—EU trade negotiations (2019/2530(RSP)).


  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, the Commission is always at the disposal of Parliament even if the timing of this debate has been a challenge.

With the adoption of the joint statement from last July by President Juncker and President Trump, we entered into a new stage in our relationship with the US, our first investment and trade partner, and we identified a focused and positive trade agenda. Since then, I have met with my American counterparts many times in an effort to implement the joint programme that we identified last summer.

We have identified future avenues on voluntary cooperation with the US and a number of regulatory sectors of major economic importance, such as pharmaceuticals, medical devices and cybersecurity, and the progress achieved so far has been reflected in a public report that we released this morning and is available for all of you to read. We will continue to engage with the US in order to respond to the global challenges, notably the WTO reform and the need to update rules to respond to the challenges posed by state capitalism.

Trends: trade in liquefied natural gas and soya beans are developing in line with expectations expressed in the July joint statement and have contributed to EU energy security and provided our farmers with protein at competitive prices.

Two weeks ago, the Commission adopted two recommendations for opening negotiations, one on industrial tariffs and one on conformity assessment. The one on industrial tariffs is quite self—explanatory and it does not include agriculture, as agreed in July. The proposed mandate on conformity assessment maybe deserves a little explanation.

Both the EU and the US have in their respective practices of conformity assessment the purpose to ensure that manufacturers can only place a product on the market when it meets all the applicable requirements to ensure that unsafe or otherwise non—compliant products do not find their way to unsuspecting consumers. In some cases this requires mandatory third-party certification. Differences in approaches to conformity assessment can result in significant additional costs without improving the safety of the products. So our aim with this recommendation for negotiations on conformity assessment is to reduce the unnecessary costs while making sure that we fully maintain our respective levels of protection.

The two recommendations thereby fulfilled the commitment that we took in July. They recognise that progress with the Trump administration is at this stage only possible with individual projects agreed on both sides. So I believe that the various strands of work we have initiated together through this process since July will add to a significant agenda with benefits from both sides. We can make every effort to project a positive trade agenda with the US on its own merits and also it is important not to fall back into a destructive cycle of trade restrictive measures and counter actions.

At the same time, we must be very clear that any thought of going beyond the joint statement and negotiating a comprehensive and all encompassing trade agreement with the US is neither feasible nor advisable at this time. The US is also not ready to negotiate on its sensitivities, such as public procurement by American maritime services, or geographical indications.

In addition, one of the important lessons that we have learnt during the TTIP negotiation is that the regulatory agenda with the US is best developed in full transparency, but outside the context of FTA negotiations. Furthermore, there are differences in some important trade-related rule areas where opposition will be very difficult to bridge.

So our efforts are more likely to bear fruit if we seek to cooperate with the US in reforming certain multilateral trade rules that are ripe for an update. We are of course remaining vigilant and we will be ready to respond firmly in case the US would no longer respect commitments given in July and would adopt further restrictive measures vis—à—vis the EU, but this scenario would not be of our choosing.

I’m looking forward to the debate.


  President. – Once again, for those who came later, I am afraid that for time reasons there will be no catch—the—eye either in this debate, or in any other to follow.


  Christophe Hansen, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, John F Kennedy once said that we cannot negotiate with people who say ‘what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is negotiable’. Donald Trump seems to disagree, judging by the American negotiating mandate. Its objective is to reduce the US trade deficit, contrary to the usual win—win approach. From the continued push to include agriculture products to downright hostility on the protection of geographic indications, the American negotiating objectives at times seem geometrically opposed to what Presidents Juncker and Trump agreed on in July last year.

Nevertheless, we should not forget that, while we are talking, we are not escalating the trade war. President Juncker stopped the devastating downward spiral of tariff upon tariff. Our negotiators should be ambitious yet stay within the confines of the joint statement. That means categorically that agriculture cannot be up for discussion. But with 50 million jobs depending on transatlantic trade, it also means that we shouldn’t be afraid to explore a positive agenda in lowering tariffs for industrial goods and facilitation of conformity assessments. Let’s put this conflict to bed once and for all and demonstrate that cooperation is still the best way to shore up the international rules-based trade order. As the same Kennedy once said, we should never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.


  Maria Arena, au nom du groupe S&D. – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, décidément je ne comprendrai jamais votre entêtement à ouvrir des négociations avec l’administration Trump.

En 2018, alors que Donald Trump décidait d’appliquer des tarifs illégaux à l’égard de l’acier et de l’aluminium européens, vous disiez, je vous cite: «Jamais je ne négocierai sous la menace.» Pourtant, ces tarifs sont toujours une menace pour les produits européens. La menace n’est pas levée et vous entrez dans une proposition de négociation, que vous faites au Conseil. Alors que Donald Trump remet en question le multilatéralisme auquel nous sommes tant attachés au niveau européen, vous décidez à nouveau de lancer les négociations avec l’administration Trump. N’est-ce pas là accepter la logique bilatérale imposée par les États-Unis actuellement?

En matière de climat, les États-Unis restent climato-sceptiques, refusant les engagements dans le cadre de la COP21. Négocier dans ce cadre serait nier l’urgence climatique à laquelle nous sommes aussi, en tant qu’Européens, particulièrement attachés.

Et enfin, quand nous comparons l’offre limitée que vous faites dans le cadre des négociations et l’offre étendue et offensive que fait l’administration américaine, on se demande quel va être le point commun, le point que vous allez pouvoir partager avec les États-Unis dans le cadre de ces négociations. Et donc, pour nous, il semble que l’ouverture de ces négociations soit une erreur tactique, une erreur politique, et nous espérons que le Conseil n’acceptera pas le mandat que vous lui avez proposé.


  Marietje Schaake, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, some of us expected this debate, along with the resolution, in March, but here we are. Quite sadly, we could actually be having a debate about EU-US trade relations on almost a weekly basis if we look at what is going on these days.

A truce was reached last summer, but the illegitimate US steel and aluminium tariffs remain and the Trump administration continues to block the appointment of judges on the World Trade Organisation (WTO) appellate body. Only this week, President Trump threatened the EU if it does not follow the US on banning trade with Iran.

It is important that we stay on our own course and continue to move forward with rules- and values-based trade agendas and plans. Working together with like-minded partners like Canada, New Zealand, Japan or Australia, we continue to raise the bar to protect rights, the environment, to instil high standards and principles and new sets of rules for trade in the digital age. I welcome the initiative launched last week on e-commerce at the WTO. I call on all those allies in the US to join our ongoing work to strengthen and reinforce the multilateral trade system. There are many.

In the meantime, in the dealings with US administration, I support your work, Commissioner, in bringing forward focused trade talks with the US on the removal of tariffs on industrial goods, but not on agricultural products, and on the mentioned conformity assessment. It is not ideal, but it is the best option for now and it is certainly important to keep the dialogue going.


  Yannick Jadot, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, vous avez ce soir une incroyable capacité à nous raconter un conte de fées. Après des mois de discussions sur la relance de ces négociations, enfin on arrive à dire que c’est un accord de libre-échange que nous passons avec les États-Unis. Mais surtout, pendant des mois aussi, les dirigeants européens, le Parlement européen, vous-même, vous avez dit, et heureusement: pas question de négocier avec un revolver sur la tempe. Où avez-vous vu que Donald Trump avait retiré son doigt de la gâchette? Sur l’acier comme sur l’automobile, il continue de nous menacer. Il continue de menacer l’ordre multilatéral international.

Et puis vous nous dites: nous avons été les bons élèves de la déclaration de juillet. Bravo! Nous importons beaucoup plus de pétrole et de gaz de schiste. Bravo! Nous avons en six mois – car nous sommes de très bons élèves – doublé nos importations de soja transgénique américain. Puis, comme avec le Canada, et c’est là que vous, la Commission européenne, sortez votre baguette magique, vous arrivez à transformer la directive sur la qualité des carburants. Avec le Canada, c’était sur les carburants issus des sables bitumineux, là, c’est sur le soja. Vous arrivez à tuer des réglementations européennes sur le climat.

Alors, franchement, négocier avec Trump, négocier dans ces conditions, négocier contre le climat, contre notre souveraineté alimentaire, c’est du n’importe quoi, il faut que ça s’arrête!


  Emma McClarkin, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, thank you for your support for rugby. I do hope you will come and support my rugby union World Cup event that I’m hosting on 19 February.

But dear colleagues, we are here to discuss something very important. The ECR strongly advocates free trade with all of our trading partners, not least our largest trading partner, the United States. And we supported the TTIP negotiations, and our preference is always to negotiate comprehensive free trade agreements that liberalise trade in goods, services and procurement.

Nonetheless, given the current circumstances with global trade tensions, I welcomed the July EU-US agreement not to impose further tariffs on each, whilst both sides scope out the room for negotiation. And the ECR continues to support the Commission’s action to begin negotiations with the US. Having two separate agreements with the US – one on tariffs on industrial products and another on conformity assessments – provides a clear structure to negotiations.

On the industrial tariffs negotiations, it is particularly welcome news that the Commission’s mandate for negotiations includes auto products, owing not least to the reciprocal interests of exporters on both sides of the Atlantic but also to ensure the compatibility of any agreement with GATT.

On conformity assessments measures, the duplication of procedures to demonstrate conformity is a significant trade barrier to SME exports in both the US and the EU, and we must look at this. I would add that one crucial condition for these negotiations is that they cannot be successfully concluded without the tariffs on steel and aluminium being removed.


  Helmut Scholz, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Frau Kommissarin, Sie sind für fairen und ethischen Handel. Sie sagten uns, Sie verhandeln nicht mit einem Revolver an Ihrem Kopf. Trump hat nichts zurückgenommen. Europas Stahl-, Aluminium- und Autoindustrie bleiben bedroht, und die Stärkung des multilateralen Welthandels bleibt im Nebel irgendwo verschwunden.

Sie haben dem Rat einen Mandatsentwurf vorgelegt, der entweder unrealistisch oder unehrlich ist. Die Forderungen und roten Linien werden Sie nicht durchsetzen können. Trump wird sich nicht verpflichten, für alle Zukunft auf Strafzölle zu verzichten. Die USA werden weiter darauf drängen, Agrargüter in dieses Abkommen hineinzunehmen, denn das ist der Kern des gültigen Fast-track-Mandats des Kongresses.

Entgegen Ihrer Behauptung, sich dem zu verweigern, haben Sie die USA über die letzten acht Monate bereits zum größten Soja-Lieferanten Europas gemacht: 77 % Marktanteil. Vor dem Juncker-Trump-Deal waren es 9 %. Sie bereiten zudem ein Sondergesetz vor, um amerikanisches Gen-Soja in die europäische Biodieselproduktion bringen zu können.

Für unsere Unternehmen geht es im Wettbewerb um faire Produktionsbedingungen, Kosten für Umweltschutz und menschenwürdige Arbeitsplätze.


  Tiziana Beghin, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signor Presidente, Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, cinque anni fa iniziai il mio mandato al Parlamento europeo con una domanda: perché i documenti del TTIP sono segreti? Oggi c'è un nuovo TTIP all'orizzonte ma questa volta i documenti non sono segreti. No, questa volta è stata adottata una strategia più subdola, perché i documenti li avete resi subito pubblici ma sono bianchi, sono praticamente bianchi: una pagina e nessun dettaglio per quello che è il mandato negoziale tra le due più grandi economie del mondo.

A parole, dite che il nuovo accordo non toccherà l'agricoltura, che non farà entrare OGM, carne con gli ormoni e che si limiterà l'industria. Ma quali sono le prove che abbiamo? Abbiamo le vostre belle parole e poi abbiamo due mandati negoziali così generici che è come se fossero in bianco: mi perdonerà se non mi sento molto rassicurata. Chissà, forse è anche perché qualche mese fa avevate dichiarato di non voler negoziare sotto la minaccia dei dazi americani e invece adesso state proprio facendo questo.

Certo, evidentemente avete deciso di premiare il loro atteggiamento pacato e costruttivo. Ma gli americani continuano a strozzare la nostra industria con i dazi sull'acciaio: hanno chiesto formalmente di tagliare i sussidi ai nostri agricoltori; ci hanno obbligati ad acquistare la loro soia e ora hanno anche minacciato ulteriori dazi sulle automobili made in Europe. Quindi, la famosa pistola alla tempia è sempre ben puntata. Voi però volete sedervi a un tavolo con loro. Io ho letto le loro richieste: non potrebbero essere più incompatibili con noi. Vogliono libero accesso alla nostra agricoltura, vogliono che ogni prodotto approvato da loro sia autorizzato da noi, vogliono entrare nei nostri appalti pubblici senza permetterci di investire nei loro.

Noi in questo modo non ci stiamo e non ci staremo finché l'America non dimostrerà buona volontà, smettendo di ricattarci. Oggi come ieri è no al TTIP.


  France Jamet, au nom du groupe ENF. – Monsieur le Président, Madame Malmström, mes chers collègues, soit vous ne nous dites pas ce que vous savez, soit vous ne savez pas ce que vous nous dites. Parce que vous nous dites que les produits agricoles seront exclus des négociations et vous vous gardez bien de nous dire que les produits de la mer seront de fait inclus dans ces négociations.

Les relations particulières qu’entretiennent les États-Unis avec le Canada et le Mexique vont ouvrir grandes les portes aux produits américains vers le marché européen, avec l’effet cocktail que nous redoutons pour nos économies.

Et personnellement, je crois que nous pouvons aussi nous demander ce qui va empêcher M. Juncker d’aller négocier tout seul et sans mandat l’importation de tonnes de soja aux OGM et de gaz de schiste, comme il l’a fait l’été dernier.

Madame Malström, nous ne transigerons sur rien, ni sur la santé, ni sur la sécurité, ni sur la souveraineté alimentaire.


  Danuta Maria Hübner (PPE). – Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, transatlantic relations do not rise and fall with one particular administration, and especially now, both sides should take the transatlantic bond seriously. Setting out a positive transatlantic trade agenda is necessary to reinforce this bond.

I share your view, Commissioner, that it is important to move towards this limited trade deal with the US, based on a narrow negotiating mandate. I believe this can help to create a more positive atmosphere with a view to countering the current global mood towards trade wars.

Transatlantic relations are much more than just trade relations, so I am sure that if we can find a way to accommodate our mutual interests in new trade arrangements, this can help to salvage our broader relationship.

Let me finish by saying that we in this House look forward to working with the new Congress on constructive trade and bilateral relations.


  Aleksander Gabelic (S&D). – Herr talman! Kommissionär Malmström! EU:s och USA:s handelsrelationer är av stor betydelse. De är väldigt viktiga. Vi är väldigt viktiga för varandra. Trots det, befinner vi oss nu i en exceptionell situation med hot om ett handelskrig. Det är mycket som står på spel. Vi är båda förlorare om situationen blir värre. Det kan drabba väldigt många människor. Därför är jag positiv till förhandlingar med USA, och jag välkomnar ansträngningarna för att hitta en gångbar väg framåt.

Kommissionen har förvisso varit tydlig med att ståltullarna måste bort och att vi inte accepterar biltullar. Men – det måste vara lika tydligt för Trump. Därför är det viktigt att vi i Europaparlamentet nu tydligt skickar med budskapet att ståltullarna och hoten om biltullar måste upphöra.

Till sist skulle jag vilja uppmana kommissionen att fortsätta att hålla oss uppdaterade om vad som sker i detta viktiga ärende. Tydlighet och transparens behövs för att förhandlingarna med USA – även om de är begränsade – inte ska skapa mer oro och onödiga tveksamheter.


  Reinhard Bütikofer (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich bin froh, dass wir heute dieses Thema diskutieren, weil wir vor falschen Weichenstellungen warnen müssen. Niemand hat etwas dagegen, Zölle abzubauen. Aber ich glaube, Frau Malmström, insgesamt ist das Mandat, das Sie vorschlagen, unrealistisch. Die USA wollen sich nicht an die Verabredung halten, die Präsident Juncker im Juli getroffen hat – Stichwort Landwirtschaft.

Was ist eigentlich mit dem Beitrag des Handels zum Kampf um Nachhaltigkeit und gegen den Klimawandel? Was ist eigentlich mit dem Versprechen von Präsident Trump, dass man alle Handelshemmnisse beseitigen wolle, wenn er sich weigert, von vornherein über öffentliche Beschaffungsregeln überhaupt zu verhandeln? Was ist mit der Gefahr, dass die gegenseitige Anerkennung von Standards zum Standard-Dumping führt?

Ich fürchte, Frau Malmström, Sie betreiben, um es auf Englisch zu sagen, eine Art von can-kicking, but we are just running out of road.


  Marcus Pretzell (ENF). – Herr Präsident, meine sehr geehrten Damen und Herren! Es ist schon ganz interessant zu sehen, wie die Tatsache, dass jetzt ein Präsident Trump in den USA Verhandlungspartner ist, auch die Debatte in diesem Parlament doch zumindest mit beeinflusst. Wenn ich mich daran erinnere, welche Begeisterung zum Teil für TTIP herrschte, obwohl dort ungeheuer restriktive Regelungen mit eingeflossen sind, dann kann man sich darüber nur wundern, welche Bedenken jetzt schon vor Aufnahme der Verhandlungen in diesem Hause aufkommen.

Donald Trump hat einen sehr einfachen und sehr einleuchtenden Vorschlag gemacht – und da ja alle in diesem Hause grundsätzlich für die Senkung von Zöllen sind und nur im Prinzip und hin und wieder mal dagegen: Er hat gesagt, lasst uns alle Zölle schleifen, lasst sie uns alle beseitigen! Das ist doch ein vernünftiger Vorschlag, Frau Malmström. Die Verhandlungen könnten sehr simpel sein mit Donald Trump.


  Ana Gomes (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, as relações Europa-Estados Unidos são todos os dias dinamitadas pela caótica presidência de Trump, que instiga o Brexit, se retirou do acordo do clima, do acordo sobre o Irão, abriu a guerra comercial, ofende dirigentes, europeus enquanto se mostra servidor de Putin.

Mas não podemos desinteressar-nos do relacionamento com o lado transatlântico. Pelo contrário, impõe-se investirmos cada vez mais nos contactos, e em especial no Congresso, e também com aqueles setores da Administração que resistem à destruição de Trump.

No que respeita às relações comerciais, esperemos para ver o que é que darão esses acordos parcelares agora logrados. Pelo menos, a Senhora Comissária chegou finalmente à conclusão de que um acordo abrangente de comércio e serviços com os Estados Unidos não é possível por ora. Já não era antes, até porque tinha aquela cláusula dos tribunais especiais, vergonhosa, e não tinha um capítulo sobre uma questão essencial que é a regulação da fiscalidade para impedir o desvio de recursos dos nossos tesouros para os paraísos fiscais.

Mais do que nunca, agora que nos Estados Unidos se admite a possibilidade de seguir o sistema de saúde universal à europeia (o Presidente interrompe a oradora) é altura de trabalharmos nisto para um futuro acordo de comércio que inclua a regulação da fiscalidade.


  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, yes, we do have differences with the US administration in several areas – also in the trade area. What we are doing and what was the purpose of the meeting in July was that, despite those differences, we tried to find a common agenda, a positive platform in the trade area and to avoid further escalation, which would be bad for us, for them and for the world.

This was agreed in July and what we agreed upon was published immediately. What we do now is that we are respecting that agenda, and it is also following what the European Council unanimously concluded in their Sofia meeting in June. There was unanimity on proposing this to the US.

We have been talking with the US during this six months in full transparency. I have many times in the European Parliament Committee on International Trade (INTA) to report on this, and as I said, the full report on what has been discussed in all areas here has been online since this morning – you can read it.

What we are asking the Council for is two mandates: one on conformity assessment and one on industrial goods. It is industrial goods, all industrial goods including the car sector and fisheries, that are included here. It is common in the WTO context that you include fisheries and industrial goods together, and it makes for a WTO-compliant agreement.

This is all and there is nothing else; there’s nothing hidden. This is what we propose. Nothing more, nothing less. This is not a free trade negotiation that we are proposing. A full FTA would, of course, include everything that you have mentioned – difficult issues for the US on public procurement, on geographical indications, on maritime services – difficult issues for us on agriculture, and a few other things. These things are not included. And furthermore, we would, of course, have urged our partner to be a signatory to the Paris Agreement. But this is not a free trade agreement. It’s very limited, albeit beneficial for us and for them. We’re talking about billions of euros from both sides if we were to eliminate tariffs on this. That is why the mandate is short, because this is what it is: nothing else.

It is also clear that this agreement cannot be concluded unless there is a solution to the steel and aluminium issue. The tariffs have to be gone, as was said here, and it would not go ahead if the US imposed other tariffs, as is being discussed right now. So this is also clear and it is also reflected in the mandate. That was not funny, that is very serious.

So this is something that would be good for mutual trade relations for our business and our consumers, and I can promise you that I will continue to keep you fully informed on where we are going on this. But what you see is exactly what there is. There is no hidden agenda here.


  President. – Thank you, Commissioner, for being with us at short notice.

The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 162)


  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE), na piśmie. – Na początku swojej kadencji nowy amerykański prezydent nie tylko zawiesił negocjacje nad TTIP, ale również przy każdej okazji okazywał swoje negatywne emocje wobec europejskich partnerów. Można było odnieść wrażenie, że nowymi sojusznikami Waszyngtonu są Moskwa i Pekin, szczególnie w dążeniu do osłabienia pozycji ekonomicznej Unii.

Komisja Europejska przyjęła jednak słuszną strategię skupiania się na rozwijaniu tych elementów wzajemnych relacji, w których postęp jest najbardziej prawdopodobny. Wydaje się więc, że udało się uniknąć transatlantyckiej wojny handlowej, co nie było takie oczywiste jeszcze kilkanaście miesięcy temu. Z punktu widzenia bezpieczeństwa energetycznego Europy szczególnie istotne jest porozumienie dotyczące możliwości eksportowania do nas skroplonego gazu. Przypomnę, że nie udawało się tego uzgodnić za czasów prezydentury Baracka Obamy. Dzięki temu porozumieniu jesteśmy w tej chwili mniej zależni energetycznie od Rosji czy państw Bliskiego Wschodu, co powinno nas cieszyć.

Na koniec chciałam podziękować komisarz Cecilii Malmström za informację, że Komisja analizuje przyczyny porażki TTIP. Przypomnę, że umowa ta była kontrowersyjna również dla znacznej części społeczeństw europejskich i wielu odetchnęło z ulgą po zawieszeniu negocjacji przez prezydenta Trumpa. Jeżeli Komisja chce dążyć do dalszej liberalizacji handlu międzynarodowego, to powinna jednak uwzględniać obawy Europejczyków.


  Agnes Jongerius (S&D), schriftelijk. –Het is ontzettend belangrijk dat wij met de Verenigde Staten in gesprek blijven over onze handelsrelatie. Naar mijn mening moet de Europese Unie gaan voor een akkoord waarbij de focus niet alleen ligt op industriële goederen, maar waarbij ook oog is voor werknemers of het milieu. Een mogelijk handelsakkoord moet dan ook sociaal zijn. Ondanks dat het gesprek gaande moet blijven, kan de EU dit niet tegen elke prijs doen. Het kan niet zo zijn dat de EU zich onder druk laat zetten door de Amerikaanse president Trump die continu dreigt met importtarieven op Europese producten. Dat is namelijk geen gelijkwaardige relatie. Ook heffen de Verenigde Staten nog altijd importtarieven op Europees staal en aluminium. In mijn optiek zet de Europese Unie geen handtekening onder een akkoord, terwijl deze tarieven nog bestaan. Tot slot maak ik mij zorgen over de Amerikaanse inzet om ook agrarische producten onderdeel van deze nieuwe overeenkomst te laten zijn. Laat ik klip en klaar zijn: ik wil de Amerikaanse chloorkip buiten deze onderhandelingen houden.


  Urmas Paet (ALDE), kirjalikult. – President Trumpi ja Junckeri poolt 25. juunil 2018 kokku lepitud ühisavalduse eesmärk oli vältida USA ja ELi vaheliste pingete edasist suurenemist omavahelistes kaubandussuhetes. Komisjon on avalduses teinud kokkulepitu elluviimise kohta ülevaate, mida nüüd Euroopa Parlamendile ja liikmesriikidele esitleti ning mis muu hulgas sätestab komisjoni esialgsed ettepanekud ja läbirääkimiste volitused. On oluline, et läbirääkimised oleksid läbipaistvad, ning need saavad jätkuda tingimusel, et USA ei kehtesta ELi ekspordile uusi tariife ega makse. Kõige selle juures tuleb aga meeles pidada ka USA olulist rolli ELi julgeolekupartnerina. Tuleb ära hoida ELi ja USA suhete edasine pingestumine, sest USA on ELile maailmas kõige olulisem partner.

Aġġornata l-aħħar: 17 ta' Mejju 2019Avviż legali - Politika tal-privatezza