Sanatarkat istuntoselostukset

Keskiviikko 13. maaliskuuta 2019 - Strasbourg

16. Suositukset neuvottelujen käynnistämisestä EU:n ja Yhdysvaltojen välillä (keskustelu)

  Die Präsidentin. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärung der Kommission zu den Empfehlungen für die Aufnahme von Verhandlungen zwischen der EU und den USA (2019/2537(RSP)).

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, the joint agreement between President Juncker and President Trump of last July outlined a focused and positive trade agenda with the USA, our first and most important trade and investment partner, and it has helped to de-escalate tensions in this very critical relationship.

Since last July, I have met my counterpart, US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, five times to review the implementation of the work programme identified in the joint statement. At our meeting last week, we evaluated progress in the work streams of the executive working group and I debriefed him on the process for adoption of the EU’s negotiating authorisations. I conveyed to him that there is momentum in the Council to conclude, in the weeks ahead, the discussions on authorisation for both negotiations – one on elimination of tariffs on industrial products and the other one on conformity assessment. I expressed our commitment fully to respect the implementation of the joint statement as it stands, and reiterated that future negotiations would not touch upon agriculture.

I am sure that this House is fully aware of the importance of the transatlantic trade relationship, which has been and will remain a central artery of the world economy.

The carefully defined, narrow and meaningful agenda of the working group can be to our mutual advantage. Given the size of the EU-US trade relationship, elimination of tariffs, even though they are today already moderately low, will lead to important cost reductions for economic operators. Many industrial sectors on both sides of the Atlantic operate with small profit margins due to the size and efficiency of our respective markets. A limited yet very meaningful agreement on industrial goods and tariffs would give transatlantic companies of all sizes a comparative advantage and would support their global capacity to compete. We estimate an increase in bilateral EU-US export of 8%, and respectively 9%, and that is around EUR 26 billion, so quite a lot of money.

In a different strand, our work on conformity assessment, standards and regulatory issues could leverage the resulting economic benefits for a free-trade agreement for industrial products. We launched consultations with stakeholders last week, inviting them to come forward with proposals, and we’re looking forward to receiving their support for our discussions with the USA in this field.

I am fully aware that some of you here fear we will be negotiating under threat. In that regard, I would like to assure you that I have conveyed a very clear message to our counterparts – as late as last week and also before that – that unilateral trade actions from the USA on EU imports would risk damaging our efforts to strengthen transatlantic relations at a critical time. I’ve also made it clear that, while it would not be of our choosing, if the USA did take unilateral trade measures against us we would immediately respond. Indeed, the negotiations would stop – that is clearly provided for in the draft negotiating directive – and we would also promptly adopt rebalancing measures. I hope, of course, that wisdom will prevail, and that this will not happen, so we can continue to work towards a mutually beneficial outcome to build this relationship.

The timely adoption of these mandates would be an important signal of the EU’s good faith in relation to honouring the joint presidential statements last July: no more, no less. Delay in the adoption risks initiating an unconstructive cycle of exchanges and allegations on the EU’s commitment to the joint statement. So I sincerely hope that you will support our negotiations with the USA. Your support is, of course, very important. It would show unity among the EU institutions, and unity is our strength.

In contrast, and this is important, a vote by this House against these limited negotiations would be a vote against the well-balanced and proportionate approach of the July statement, which we deployed to reduce trade tensions. It would therefore be a vote in favour of maintaining current trade tensions with the USA at a time when ideas to bring down these tensions are on the table.

Especially regarding cars, as we have included that in our proposal, it is much better for the transatlantic relationship to bring car tariffs down to zero percent. It’s better for the producers, for the workers and consumers: much better than slapping additional tariffs on cars and car parts.

Let me assure you that I will listen very carefully to this debate, to your ideas and recommendations, and I would reiterate that, once we have started negotiations, we will actively be informing this House on a regular basis on all aspects of our discussions, as we always do.

  Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin, zunächst möchte ich Ihnen meinen Respekt ausdrücken. Ihre Bemühungen, die transatlantischen Beziehungen wieder zu normalisieren, sind wichtig, und sie können nur durch konstruktive Verhandlungen zu nachhaltigen Resultaten führen. Deshalb empfehle ich diesem Haus, sich in der morgigen Abstimmung verantwortungsvoll zu verhalten und sich für ein solches Mandat auszusprechen.

Es ist in unser aller Interesse, mögliche Gemeinsamkeiten mit den USA auszuloten und diese für eine Entschärfung der Handelsspannungen auch zu nutzen. Wer jetzt jedoch plötzlich verlangt, die Kommission sollte harte Kante zeigen, nur diese Sprache könnte Trump verstehen, schert sich nicht um all diejenigen, die durch mögliche Sanktionen, sei es auf Autos, sei es auf andere Produkte, den Schaden tagtäglich zu tragen hätten. Stattdessen sollten wir gerade aufgrund der Unstimmigkeiten zwischen der EU und den USA wieder an den Verhandlungstisch zurückkehren. Was haben wir denn zu verlieren?

Sollten diese Verhandlungen erfolglos verlaufen, war es zumindest ein konstruktiver Versuch, die Beziehungen auf neue Beine zu stellen. Sollten sie zu Resultaten führen, haben wir nicht nur einen Handelskonflikt entschärft, sondern auch noch Zölle und Handelshindernisse abbauen können. Und letztendlich möchte ich noch einen einzigen Satz hinzufügen: Die Welt bewegt sich, sie schreitet voran, ob wir verhandeln oder nicht, und ich glaube, es ist die Pflicht der großen Demokratien, zusammenzuarbeiten.

  Bernd Lange, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin! „We won’t negotiate with a gun to our head“ – das war in vielen Pressestatements in der letzten Zeit das Prinzip der Europäischen Union: wir verhandeln nicht unter Erpressungsdruck. Nun frage ich mich: Was hat sich geändert? Die Zölle der USA auf Stahl und Aluminium sind in Kraft, es gibt zusätzliche Zölle auf spanische Oliven. Wir haben die Drohung unter Herrn Trump für zusätzliche Zölle auf Autos und Kraftfahrzeugteile, er hat gerade eine Untersuchung abgeschlossen. Es hat sich hinsichtlich des Drucks der USA nichts geändert.

Auf unserer Seite haben wir viele Zugeständnisse gemacht. Der Import von Flüssiggas aus den USA ist um 180 % gestiegen, der Import von Sojabohnen ist um 112 % gestiegen. Die Kommission hat im Eilverfahren die Nachhaltigkeit der amerikanischen Sojabohnen bestätigt, zwei Monate nur, und die dürfen jetzt auch in Biodiesel eingemischt werden, also zusätzlich eine Importsteigerung für amerikanische Sojabohnen. Also wir haben als Europäische Union schon eine ganze Reihe von Zugeständnissen gemacht. Ich frage: Wo sind die Zugeständnisse der Vereinigten Staaten? Wo wird der Druck der Vereinigten Staaten abgebaut? Ich sehe da nichts. Und solange das so ist, müssen wir sehr selbstbewusst unsere Position formulieren.

Und zum Zweiten: Im Juli letzten Jahres haben wir beschlossen, kein Abkommen abzuschließen, in dem keine Referenz und Umsetzung des Pariser Klimaschutzabkommens vorhanden ist. Heute, wenige Stunden vor dieser Debatte, haben wir über Klimaschutz diskutiert. Alles das findet sich in den Mandatsvorschlägen nicht wieder, nicht mal ein impact assessement über Klimaauswirkungen dieses Abkommens. Nein, lassen Sie uns unsere Anforderungen selbstbewusst formulieren! Denn für mich gilt immer noch: Die Geltung des Rechts wollen wir durchsetzen und das Recht des Stärkeren ablehnen.

  Jan Zahradil, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, transatlantic trade is a cornerstone of the global trading system. Our political group supports the Commission’s two draft mandates, one on tariffs on industrial products and another on conformity assessments. They will not only help to de—escalate rising tensions but also, and more importantly, would bring substantial benefits to EU businesses and consumers.

For instance, the elimination of high tariffs on manufactured goods, such as clothing and footwear, would open up opportunities for EU exporters and increase the international competitiveness of our industries. In addition, our SMEs would benefit from the elimination of duplicate testing, inspection and certification requirements that would be possible with a conformity assessment agreement.

I would add, however, one crucial condition for these negotiations: they cannot be successfully concluded without the tariffs on steel and aluminium being removed. More clarity is also needed on the inclusion of the automotive sector, as it is key to ensuring World Trade Organisation compatibility, and on how the rules of origin will work.

I believe too that the EU and the USA must both build on and learn from the four years of negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, especially in relation to possible ‘quick wins’ on tariffs, customs facilitation, standards and regulatory cooperation. The ECR Group hopes that this agreement can be the foundation to build on in years to come.

  Marietje Schaake, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, rules-based trade is important for our open economies, especially because the majority of growth in the next decades will take place outside of the EU.

But when we look at China, we see a country not respecting trade rules and sadly now, when we look at the United States, we also see an administration that has unjustly labelled the EU as a national security threat in order to justify steel and aluminium tariffs, while, of course, reminding us of our obligations under the NATO alliance. It doesn’t quite add up, and the escalations in our trade relations with the US have serious consequences. It is therefore crucial to keep talking and to try to come to agreements. Somebody has to be the adult in the room. For those in the House who do not want to support the European Commission here, I hope you understand that it will be gladly explained by Ambassador Sondland and other officials of the Trump administration as proof of the EU’s inability to make decisions, and that is not in our interest. Instead, by supporting the Commission opening negotiations on the basis of a limited scope (this is not the defrosting of TTIP, it is the consequence of the agreement between Juncker and Trump) but spelling out very clear conditions on our part before closing them, we engage in the most meaningful way.

I would also like to remind colleagues that they should not use the agreements we make with third countries as the weapons to beat those countries with, while we in fact lack the foundations of a bilateral agreement or negotiations with countries that we do trade with – think about China.

Let us be clear about what is to gain here, but also be very very mindful of what we could lose. My group will support the European Commission, and I believe we have to be strong and united as Europe, especially when dealing with the confrontations of the Trump administration.

  Yannick Jadot, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, Donald Trump est celui qui, il y a quelques années, disait «le réchauffement climatique est un canular total. C’est un concept inventé par et pour les Chinois, afin de rendre le secteur manufacturier américain non compétitif».

Il y a encore quelques semaines, lorsque le Congrès américain a rédigé un rapport sur le climat, avec 300 scientifiques qui soulignaient les effets dramatiques du changement climatique, y compris pour les États-Unis, le président Trump disait «je n’y crois pas».

Ce même président Trump, durant tous ces derniers mois, n’a cessé de souffler sur les braises du Brexit, soutenant le Brexit le plus dur, critiquant même Theresa May dans sa volonté de trouver un accord avec l’Union européenne.

Et c’est avec ce président que vous voulez aujourd’hui négocier, c’est à ce président que vous donnez une partie de notre souveraineté, une partie de nos valeurs, cela a été dit. J’entends même nos amis sociaux-démocrates retrouver, dans cette période électorale, la raison, le bon sens.

On ne négocie pas avec un président qui nous met un revolver sur la tempe! On ne négocie pas avec un président qui nous taxe le matin, qui nous menace l’après-midi sur la sidérurgie, sur les voitures et demain sur je ne sais quoi!

Donc, si nous avons du courage, si, dans cette période, nous voulons montrer que l’Union européenne est une puissance économique, une puissance politique, si nous voulons montrer que l’Union européenne défend ses valeurs sur le climat et sur tous les sujets sociaux, environnementaux, nous ne pouvons pas amorcer de négociations avec les États-Unis. C’est de la tartufferie de dire: «Commençons, et on verra bien ce qui se passera au fil du temps». Non, on ne peut pas négocier aujourd’hui avec les États-Unis, parce que président Trump ne représente pas nos valeurs, n’incarne pas nos valeurs, est un danger pour notre souveraineté économique et donc pour notre souveraineté démocratique.

  Helmut Scholz, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin Malmström, Präsident Trump drohte uns kürzlich als Europäische Union: „I will tariff the hell out ouf you“, wenn wir uns nicht auf ein Handelsabkommen zu seinen Bedingungen einlassen. Das klingt wie ein Spruch aus einem schlechten Western. Sie selbst sagten im Spiegel noch vor einem Jahr: „Wir verhandeln erst, wenn Trump uns die Pistole wieder von der Brust nimmt“, und jetzt wollen sie kapitulieren?

Ich bin enttäuscht, dass Sie dem Rat vorgeschlagen haben, Ihnen trotz verschärfter Drohkulisse mit Strafzöllen auf Autos ein Verhandlungsmandat für ein Abkommen zu erteilen. Sie werfen dafür sogar eigene Prinzipien über Bord: Obwohl das substanzielle Abkommen mehr als 90 % aller Güter betreffen soll, die zwischen der EU und den USA gehandelt werden, verweigern Sie eine Studie zur Abschätzung der ökonomischen, sozialen und ökologischen Folgen. Es ist nicht einmal ein Standardkapitel mit Regeln für den Schutz von Beschäftigten und Umwelt in der Produktion dieser Güter vorgesehen. Es gibt keine Konsultation mit der Bevölkerung. Zudem verschließen Sie die Augen vor Trumps Entscheidung, das Pariser Klimaschutzabkommen zu verlassen – meine Kollegen haben schon dazu gesprochen. Nach unseren Grundsätzen hat sich die Regierung Trump damit als Verhandlungspartner selbst disqualifiziert. Sie wissen, was Trump vorhat. Er will die Öffnung unseres Marktes für amerikanische Agrargüter erzwingen. Das wäre aber das Ende für Tausende unserer Bauern, und für unsere nachhaltige Landwirtschaft auch. Haben Sie denn die TTIP—Proteste von Millionen Europäern vergessen? Im Gegenzug will er nichts geben, sondern nur auf die Verhängung von Strafzöllen auf Autos zu diesem Zeitpunkt verzichten. Frau Kommissarin, ich werbe für eine Mehrheit für unsere Anträge in der morgigen Abstimmung, dem Rat zu empfehlen, kein Mandat für diese Verhandlungen zu erteilen.

  Tiziana Beghin, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signora Presidente, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, la nostra posizione su questa seconda versione del TTIP non è cambiata, ma quella della Commissione evidentemente sì, visto che da fonti americane l'agricoltura sarà inclusa nell'accordo. E certo! Lo sappiamo, fa troppa gola agli americani. Ma vede, non siamo noi a dover tendere la mano agli Stati Uniti. La nostra parte l'abbiamo già fatta importando il 77 % in più della loro soia e il 181 % in più del loro gas naturale. Ora è il momento che siano loro a venire incontro a noi. Prima di iniziare anche solo a negoziare, vogliamo che l'amministrazione USA sospenda i dazi su acciaio e alluminio e interrompa ogni azione ostile sulle nostre auto.

Vogliamo fare un nuovo accordo? Benissimo! Annulliamo, però, il mandato negoziale di quello vecchio, ripartiamo da zero e cancelliamo per sempre quel famigerato TTIP che ha terrorizzato per anni i cittadini europei. E, per carità, non svendiamo la nostra agricoltura.

  France Jamet, au nom du groupe ENF. – Madame la Présidente, mes chers collègues, cette résolution est une véritable mystification.

L’esprit du texte d’origine a été complètement perverti en commission par une alliance d’ultralibéraux composés du PPE, de l’ALDE et de l’ECR, puisque certains de nos collègues ont choisi de sacrifier la nécessité politique à des intérêts boutiquiers. Là où nous devions exiger des garanties solides face aux États-Unis avant de songer à négocier, nous voulons maintenant négocier avant d’obtenir des garanties solides sur le secteur automobile, sur l’exclusion de l’agriculture avant les négociations et enfin sur une étude d’impact concernant le secteur de la pêche.

Qui peut croire qu’un accord que nous mettrons 10 ans, 15 ans, 20 ans à négocier ne sera pas signé, si une seule de ces conditions n’était pas remplie à la fin des négociations? Personne. Nous devons impérativement poser nos conditions aux États-Unis avant de nous mettre à la table des négociations, et surtout pas l’inverse!

  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE). – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, la Comisión Juncker ha tenido que rectificar el tiro de su política comercial después de la decisión de los Estados Unidos de retirarse del acuerdo de comercio e inversión. La verdad es que las sanciones o los aranceles sobre el aluminio, el acero y la aceituna negra española que tienen que ser erradicados no son el mejor comienzo. En ese contexto, la declaración de julio del año pasado y estas directivas de negociación para los acuerdos de reducción de los aranceles de los productos industriales y de las barreras no arancelarias son un giro interesante.

Pero, señora comisaria, es importante mantener los principios —por cierto, hay aquí colegas que invocan los principios de nuestra política comercial cuando no han creído, no creen y los utilizan como excusa para rechazar los acuerdos de libre comercio—. Es importante, señora comisaria, luchar por un comercio basado en reglas sobre la reforma de la Organización Mundial de Comercio, preservar los principios de París y, sobre todo, señora presidenta, no renunciar a los acuerdos en curso: Mercosur, Australia y Nueva Zelanda.

  Victor Boştinaru (S&D). – Madam President, I would like to say to Madam Commissioner that we all agree here that the transatlantic relationship is facing an important number of challenges and disruptions in the short term. Nevertheless, I remain convinced that the long-term fundamentals remain, and have to remain strong. It is important today for the EU to take all necessary safeguard measures to protect the EU internal market, our workers and our industries. That means being firm and rapid in counteracting any new tariffs and measures taken by the US administration, but at the same time to do our utmost to appease the tensions and avoid a trade war, which could escalate and heavily impact on both sides.

We know well that there is no better way to avoid new tariffs than through dialogue and negotiations. This is why I trust the Commission to do the right thing and I welcome the efforts of President Juncker and Commissioner Malmström and support starting talks for limited sectorial negotiations with the United States. I will conclude with one question, Madam Commissioner. If we say no to the talks with the United States, with whom will we say yes in the future?

  Dita Charanzová (ALDE). – Madam President, the US and European have always been natural partners. We champion common values and face common threats together. As in any relationship, there have been highs and lows. Despite the occasional obstacle, the fundamental common interests of our relationship remain strong.

Last year was clearly a low for our trade. While responding firmly to the tariffs on steel and aluminium, the EU at the same time showed it is willing to cooperate to find solutions. The message was clear: we need to work together; we need this for our businesses and the jobs they create in Europe. Our markets, resources, security and citizens are highly interdependent, and this will only increase. Therefore I hope this Parliament will clearly support the launch of the negotiations. We can always win through negotiations, but we will only lose if we close the door to the US.

  Reinhard Bütikofer (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin, Kollegen! Der Besuch von Präsident Juncker im Juli im Weißen Haus war ein Geniestreich. Hätte die Kommission auf der Basis der Ergebnisse dieses Besuchs schnell ein Mandat vorgelegt, wir stünden heute besser da. Aber mit einer falschen Taktik haben sie politisches Kapital und Zeit verplempert, und dies aus großer Furcht vor einer öffentlichen Debatte und aus unrealistischer Einschätzung der Hartleibigkeit der US-Administration. Sie sagen gerade, Frau Kommissarin: ...

‘unilateral trade actions would risk damaging our efforts of strengthening transatlantic trade relations’.

So sprechen furchtsame Seelen. Herr Lighthizer dagegen spricht zu uns im Kommandoton. Und da kann ich nur sagen: Wenn man sich benimmt wie ein getretener Hund, dann wird man viele Fußtritte erleben. Ich bin fürs Verhandeln, aber nicht auf der Basis eines so schwachen Mandats. Deswegen müssen wir das ablehnen und zurückkommen und Sie zwingen, ein besseres Mandat vorzulegen.

  Lola Sánchez Caldentey (GUE/NGL). – Señora presidenta, esta mañana hemos debatido sobre el cambio climático y la derecha se ha llenado la boca de compromisos vacíos. Hasta el comisario Cañete parecía preocupado por el futuro del planeta.

Digo yo que tan preocupados no estarán cuando han vetado ustedes a Greta Thunberg, de solo 16 años. Les da miedo a ustedes escuchar la verdad.

La mayoría de las políticas europeas profundizan en la dinámica suicida de acelerar el cambio climático, y aquí tenemos el ejemplo perfecto: resucitar el TTIP. Le cambian el nombre, lo trocean y piensan que así nos pasará desapercibido.

Comisaria Malmström, ustedes se comprometieron a que la implementación del Acuerdo de París fuese una condición sine qua non para firmar tratados comerciales. Todos sabemos aquí lo que Trump piensa del cambio climático y que reniega del Acuerdo, pero los negocios son los negocios y parece que eso a ustedes les pesa más que el futuro del planeta.

Como ya hemos vencido una vez al TTIP, ya sabemos cómo hacerlo: con información y con movilización. Pero hoy, además, hay una juventud en pie junto con un movimiento feminista que no van a permitirles sacar adelante políticas que comprometan nuestro futuro.

Necesitamos otro modelo comercial, hagámoslo mientras estemos a tiempo.

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFDD). – Madam President, German car manufacturers exported cars to the USA to the value of more than USD 20 billion in 2017. In 2015, the figure was over USD 26 billion, and this notwithstanding the fact that German car manufacturers have little or no input in the formulation of US regulations. Nonetheless, they export very successfully.

But let me come to the key point, that US tariffs on imported cars are 2.5%. EU tariffs on cars exported from the USA, by comparison, are 10%. It is asymmetric. The US administration has a point, whatever colleagues may say. And, in consequence, US exports of cars to the EU are a tiny fraction: only USD 48 million, as against USD 20 billion.

Now to the resolution. The resolution criticises the USA for withdrawing from the Paris Agreement but, Mr Jadot, you cannot have the government that you want in someone else’s country. Indeed, you can’t always have the government that you want in your own country. I certainly know that now and I have known it for some years.

What we’re looking at here is the politicisation of trade. The politicised paraphernalia in this resolution shows how difficult and tricky it is for the EU to finalise trade agreements, and that is the penalty that the people of the EU Member States pay for the politicisation of trade, which is aided and abetted by so many colleagues and is something I deplore.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue—card question under Rule 162(8))

  Yannick Jadot (Verts/ALE), question «carton bleu». – Cher collègue, je n’ai pas bien compris si vous étiez convaincu du dérèglement climatique ou si vous n’étiez pas convaincu du dérèglement climatique. Je n’ai pas bien compris si la Grande-Bretagne, qui a été un très grand pays dans la communauté internationale, croyait toujours aux valeurs universelles de cette communauté internationale. Et puis je n’ai pas bien compris si le gouvernement en Grande-Bretagne était aujourd’hui, dans ces moments de vote, votre gouvernement!

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFDD), blue-card answer. – I think that’s two questions. If you don’t mind, I’ll just answer one. In this debate we’re discussing trade, not climate change, and this is a serious point that I’m making. It is simply that you should not, with your considerable political expertise, tack irrelevant things about climate change – or, for that matter, other irrelevant things – onto what should be basic ‘plain vanilla’ trade agreements. If you do so, it will be costly to the peoples of Europe whom you claim to represent.

  Christophe Hansen (PPE). – Madam President, trade conflicts begin when one country decides to violate international trade rules to undercut another country’s industries. This is exactly where we stand in our relations with the United States. Our aim here should be to stand up strongly for our export jobs. Those who seek to torpedo negotiations with the US are playing poker with the jobs of our people. Let’s not forget that 88% of the EU companies exporting to the United States are SMEs. The European Commission should pursue a win-win agreement, strictly within the scope of the negotiation mandate, and respect the July conditions for concluding an agreement; and we should resist any American effort to include agriculture. As JFK once said, we should never negotiate out of fear, but never fear to negotiate, and that’s what we should do if we have the political courage, Mr Jadot.

  Jeppe Kofod (S&D). – Madam President, Madam Commissioner, I think this question as to whether we should restart negotiations is very important for us. I think it’s clear to everybody that the Trump White House is undermining all that we stand for, not only in Europe but also in much of America. I am vice-chairing the delegation to the US and I have many colleagues in Congress who have the total opposite opinion of Mr Trump, Robert Lighthizer, Wilbur Ross and all these people who are occupying the administration in what they think.

Should we then start discussions with people that we don’t agree with? People who are undermining the rule of law on trade, people who are undermining the World Trade Organisation. I think we should do it because Europe is a strong superpower when it comes to trade. We are the ones who are in the driving seat and we would never accept, in trade negotiations with the US, any deal before they lift their unilateral tariffs on us.

If you can restore some sensitivity and the rule of law, then we should take it, but we should not do it under pressure.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))

  Bill Etheridge (EFDD), blue-card question. – I just want to clarify from your speech, Mr Kofod, whether I am right in characterising what you said as being that the European or EU superpower, as you put it, should not talk trade with an administration that it disagrees with, even if that administration happens to be in the one real superpower in the world – the USA – and that you would rather talk to the people in opposition than to those currently in a position to do a trade deal? Surely – and, believe me, I understand what it’s like to see a government in place that I disagree with – if we’re talking about trade that affects all of our constituents, all of our countries, there should be discussion about trade for jobs and employment and careers?

  Jeppe Kofod (S&D), blue-card answer. – Well, I think you misunderstood me. I think we can talk to the US administration, despite all of the differences we have, because the US is much more than the current administration, the Trump Administration; the US is Congress, where a lot of people fiercely disagree on the trade policy that this White House under Trump is doing. What I said is that Europe is a trade superpower: we uphold the rule of law when it comes to trade. We want to ensure that the World Trade Organisation continues. We want to ensure a level playing field in trade. We want to integrate sustainability. We want to integrate and fight against climate change in our trade agreements. We should talk from a position of strength, not be too weak to talk to the people we disagree with.

  Mireille D’Ornano (EFDD). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, voici que l’Union européenne a décidé de rouvrir des négociations pour passer un accord commercial avec les États-Unis. Pourtant, les peuples rejettent avec vigueur les traités de libre-échange qui les appauvrissent. L’accord global prévu avec les États-Unis se trouve dans une véritable impasse depuis l’élection de Donald Trump.

Au lieu de prendre acte de cet échec, les technocrates essaient de trouver des astuces de remplacement. Cet accord dont nous discutons aujourd’hui en fait partie. Or, il n’y a rien de positif à attendre de cette négociation. Comment croire que l’agriculture en sera réellement exclue, alors que M. Juncker a déjà accepté d’augmenter les importations de soja américain pour pouvoir vendre des voitures allemandes. Il est temps d’opter pour un autre modèle, plus durable, plus social, plus respectueux des hommes et de l’environnement.

Chaque jour, l’Union européenne démontre qu’il n’y a qu’une chose à faire, en sortir pour s’en sortir.

  Die Präsidentin. – Für das nun folgende Verfahren der spontanen Wortmeldungen habe ich eine große Bitte: Ich habe zehn Anmeldungen und möchte sie alle wahrnehmen. Die Grundvoraussetzung hierfür ist allerdings, dass Sie sich bitte an Ihre Redezeiten halten. Sonst werde ich nicht alle zehn zu Wort kommen lassen.

Spontane Wortmeldungen

  Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Mamy porozumienie z Kanadą, z Japonią, niedawno uchwaliliśmy także porozumienie, które będzie wdrażane z Afganistanem, a nie chcemy porozumienia ze Stanami Zjednoczonymi.

Skrajna lewica i skrajna prawica uważają, że negocjacje należy zaczynać od zera lub ich w ogóle nie prowadzić. Dlaczego? Bo nie podoba im się Donald Trump. Ale Amerykanom się spodobał. Może się pomylili. A czy w Europie nie było pomyłek wyborczych? Brytyjczycy nie pomylili się z brexitem? Obserwując parlament brytyjski, mam wrażenie, że posłowie grają w piłkę nożną na boisku do koszykówki, tylko jeszcze o tym nie wiedzą.

Błędy się zdarzają. Natomiast tak poważny partner, z którym mamy bardzo ważne powiązania w zakresie bezpieczeństwa i obrony, musi być naszym partnerem strategicznym także w umowach handlowych. Chcę na to zwrócić uwagę, podkreślając wagę i znaczenie stosunków handlowych ze Stanami Zjednoczonymi.

  Inmaculada Rodríguez-Piñero Fernández (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, defiendo las relaciones transatlánticas y el diálogo como mecanismo para resolver los problemas a los que hacemos frente, pero, sinceramente, no creo que se den las condiciones para negociar un acuerdo comercial con los Estados Unidos en los términos planteados por la Comisión.

Creo que en política lo más importante es la coherencia entre lo que se dice y lo que se hace. Y me quiero dirigir a todos los jóvenes que están aquí, que están firmemente comprometidos con la lucha contra el cambio climático y que nos piden a los políticos acción para resolver ese futuro. Y si nosotros decimos y aprobamos en este Parlamento —y las instituciones europeas han manifestado el firme compromiso con la lucha contra el cambio climático—, no podemos hacer una excepción con un acuerdo comercial con los Estados Unidos porque se basa en la industria ―que es la que tiene efectos más contaminantes― para excluirlo de esta situación.

Y no podemos negociar con quien no nos ha considerado un socio fiable, con quien nos ha atacado imponiendo aranceles basados en leyes que no se justifican porque amenazan la seguridad —se supone que la Unión Europea amenaza su seguridad—; esas no son las condiciones para establecer un diálogo como debería ser en el futuro.

  Ruža Tomašić (ECR). – Gospođo predsjedavajuća, Sjedinjene Američke Države naš su glavni globalni partner i u tom smislu logično je očekivati dugoročnu obostranu posvećenost olakšavanju i povećanju trgovinske razmjene.

Drago mi je da se novo poglavlje u trgovinskim odnosima otvara relativno brzo nakon kraha pregovora o TTIP-u. Nadam se da ovoga puta nećemo ponoviti stare pogreške i da će novi sporazum obuhvaćati sve industrije te da nećemo robovati uzaludnim pokušajima harmonizacije standarda proizvodnje, nego otvoriti prostor međusobnom priznavanju postojećih standarda uz posebnu oznaku na proizvodima.

 Također se nadam da naši pregovarači neće za pregovarački stol donijeti europske predrasude o predsjedniku Trumpu i njegovoj administraciji. Budemo li kroz ove pregovore slali političke poruke o Trumpovoj vladavini umjesto da se fokusiramo na biznis, sigurno nećemo uspjeti. Pitanje je onda hoće li, i kada, biti trećeg pokušaja. Zato, budimo mudri.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, quiero expresar mi acuerdo con este mandato negociador por tres razones. Nuestra economía va a crecer más en los próximos años gracias a lo que estamos facturando en el exterior.

Las tres razones: una, prepararnos para esta situación es obligatorio para la economía europea y fundamental para que las pymes puedan operar en aquel país; dos, estos acuerdos son la única vía para defender y extender nuestros estándares medioambientales y sociales; y tres, esta no es una actuación aislada.

Europa ha respondido a la amenaza del neoproteccionismo y las guerras comerciales con la firma de acuerdos muy importantes, como el recientemente cerrado con Japón y los que se negocian con otros actores que obligan a todos a moverse.

Quiero subrayar que si todo esto es posible es porque se está gestionando en femenino. Las listas de agravios, las palabras gruesas, la testosterona le encantan a Trump —es verdad, le encantan—, pero esconde en ese ruido el fracaso que han cosechado las recetas que defiende.

Y la comisaria Malmström atesora, además del currículum, una capacidad para negociar, pero conduce esto con inteligencia emocional. Por eso la política espectáculo, la del titular cortoplacista y tuitera que se lleva hoy, no va a conseguir que usted se levante de la mesa y yo...

(La presidenta retira la palabra a la oradora).

  Molly Scott Cato (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, entering trade negotiations with the US at this time would mean colluding in their attempt to smash up the institutions of multilateral trade cooperation and joining Trump in the new global game of ‘bully thy neighbour’. It would make a mockery of the idea of trade for all, and would put the final nail in the coffin of the vision of an EU trade policy based on environmental and social justice. With the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stating that we have only 12 years to solve the climate crisis, it is simply impossible to open trade negotiations with a country that is the world’s second biggest emitter of carbon dioxide and yet is reneging on its climate commitments at every opportunity.

How can we be considering offering the US improved trade terms a year after they introduced punitive tariffs on our steel industry, while failing to make their own steel industry compliant with the Paris Agreement? Rather than feeding Trump’s ego, we should develop a strong industrial policy that defends European workers and supports the move towards a low-carbon economy.

  Rosa D'Amato (EFDD). – Signora Presidente, signora Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, facciamo molta attenzione, perché non vi permetteremo di aggirare il parere di quest'Aula e dei popoli che essa rappresenta, e quindi di aprire dei negoziati commerciali con gli Stati Uniti d'America che siano in realtà una sorta di "trattato-escamotage" che metta a rischio salute e ambiente, che permetta l'ingresso incondizionato dagli USA di prodotti agricoli e della pesca, ad esempio. Una decisione, questa, che sarebbe davvero illogica, che affosserebbe ancor di più i nostri pescatori e tutto il settore ittico, inondando il mercato europeo di pesce a basso prezzo. Una minaccia contro la quale noi ci opporremo con tutte le nostre forze.

Quante volte abbiamo detto che gli accordi commerciali vanno fatti, sì, ma nell'interesse, prima di tutto, dei cittadini europei e a patto che creino mercati interessanti, utili, di sbocco per i nostri produttori? Non importa quante volte ce lo chiederete, la nostra risposta sarà sempre la stessa: no ad un nuovo TTIP.

  Jarosław Wałęsa (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Rozpoczęcie negocjacji ma na celu powstrzymanie dalszej eskalacji napięć handlowych i politycznych pomiędzy USA i Unią Europejską. Dopóki toczą się rozmowy, USA zobowiązały się do niewprowadzania ceł na import samochodów z Unii Europejskiej. Motoryzacja stanowi 12% całkowitego polskiego eksportu, a 85% procent polskiego eksportu motoryzacyjnego skierowane jest na europejski – głównie niemiecki – rynek. Z kolei Niemcy są głównym eksporterem na rynek amerykański, zatem w polskim interesie gospodarczym jest unikanie ceł na samochody, a negocjacje z USA mogą przyczynić się do realizacji tego celu.

Muszę też wspomnieć o zabezpieczeniu wrażliwości w sektorze energochłonnym. Chodzi o różnice w cenach gazu, energii i kosztach regulacyjnych w USA i w Unii Europejskiej – zwłaszcza w Polsce. Nie mniej ważna jest eliminacja licencji eksportowych dotyczących LNG w USA, która przyniosłaby większą stabilność warunków handlu.

  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, doamnă comisar, stimați colegi, sigur, avem multe motive să fim supărați pe administrația Trump. Personal, am luptat foarte mult să introduc în TTIP foarte multe amendamente. A căzut acel TTIP, dar relația a Uniunii Europene cu Statele Unite ale Americii nu poate fi ignorată. Trebuie să ne gândim în ansamblu ce pierdem și ce câștigăm. Eu am încredere în doamna comisar și eu cred că, pe un mandat limitat, trebuie să deschidem negocierile. Nu sunt pierdute decât acele bătălii pe care nu le începi niciodată, spunea un mare scriitor din țara mea, Mircea Eliade.

Doamna comisar, trebuie să țineți cont de ce s-a spus aici. Avem nevoie de evaluarea conformității, avem nevoie de standarde de produs care să fie recunoscute, avem nevoie să nu ni se impună unilateral tarife la anumite grupe de produse și cred foarte mult că dumneavoastră puteți să duceți această sarcină și să ne raportați ce se întâmplă cu această piață. Pentru că nu putem cu Rusia să nu avem, cu Turcia să nu avem, cu China să nu avem, cu Statele Unite ale Americii să nu avem! Cum să dezvoltăm piața unică?

Eu vă doresc succes și sper să treacă acest mandat de negociere.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire Malmström, je rêve encore d’une Europe où l’on mette de la cohérence entre nos politiques sociales, agricoles, de développement, d’échanges commerciaux et d’environnement. Madame la Commissaire, expliquez-nous l’intérêt d’augmenter les importations de soja américain, en vertu des accords de Blair House de 1992, sur le continent européen, plutôt que d’augmenter la production des protéines agricoles, végétales, au niveau européen.

Expliquez-nous l’intérêt de continuer à sacrifier l’agriculture, qui est la variable d’ajustement de toutes les autres politiques, dans les accords de libre-échange que vous promulguez. L’importation massive de soja contrevenait déjà au protocole de Kyoto, et elle contrevient aux accords de Paris. Madame la Commissaire, vous qui venez du très beau pays de Greta Thunberg, allez-vous arrêter de faire semblant d’écouter? Allez-vous enfin mettre en cohérence la politique des échanges commerciaux avec la nécessaire lutte contre le réchauffement climatique, qui devient une urgence?

  Maria Arena (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, j’ai vraiment l’impression que tout fait farine au moulin de la Commission européenne quand il s’agit de libéraliser les échanges commerciaux.

Vos arguments, en général, sont des arguments qui peuvent être entendus, par exemple: nous faisons des accords avec des pays qui sont des pays amis, avec des pays qui partagent nos valeurs et qui partagent nos règles. Mais, dites-moi, en quoi M. Trump et son gouvernement partagent-ils nos valeurs?

Nos valeurs en matière climatique? Il a décidé de sortir des négociations et de la table des négociations de la COP21. Les valeurs en matière de commerce international? M. Trump a décidé de ne pas respecter les règles de l’OMC. Vous qui êtes la défenderesse des règles de l’OMC, pourquoi voulez-vous vous mettre autour de la table avec le gouvernement Trump, alors que ce même gouvernement ne respecte pas les règles qui doivent, selon vous, être respectées?

Je vous demande donc de citer un seul argument qui permette de dire que vous seriez en mesure de changer la politique actuelle du gouvernement Trump, une politique qui ne respecte pas l’Europe.

Je n’y crois pas et je ne pense pas qu’il serait opportun, aujourd’hui, que le Conseil autorise le mandat que vous proposez.

(Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen)

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, the agreement that President Juncker made in July with President Trump was to try, despite our disagreement in several areas, to find ways in which we could cooperate.

We talked about liquefied natural gas (LNG). There is a desire for many European countries to buy American LNG instead of LNG from other important partners and the Americans agreed to facilitate that. That is a decision to be taken by every Member State and their companies. Of course, it is not the Commission buying gas. The increase of soya beans is also a result of markets. The Commission is not buying soya beans and stocking them in the Berlaymont building. This is market policy because it has changed quite considerably. We agreed to accept the American sustainability scheme in full compliance with the directive.

We also agreed that we would cooperate to reform the World Trade Organisation (WTO). We have disagreements there as well, but we also have a process where we work with the Americans and the Japanese to try to write new WTO rules in order to counter some of the state capitalism from China, for instance. That work is ongoing. We also agreed that we would cooperate on some regulatory matters in full transparency, voluntarily, with full respect for our respective protective systems.

We agreed that we would seek negotiations on two limited – but still important – agreements. One on the conformity assessment – and I haven’t heard anybody question that here today – and the other one would be on a limited agreement, a tariff on industrial goods. This is what we are asking you to give your opinion on here. In the proposed mandates, there are clear conditions. We could not conclude anything if the tariffs on steel and aluminium were not lifted before we try to conclude. There would be no additional tariffs under 232, for instance, on cars.

In the course of these negotiations, we will also do an external study on an impact assessment on sustainability. We will – and we have already started to – consult with civil society. It is crystal clear in this mandate – and by accepting it, you would make it even clearer in writing – that agriculture is not included in the negotiations. It is a limited agreement that we are asking for on industrial goods, including fisheries and cars. That would make it WTO compatible and the sums are not negligible for the European Union either, so we are not giving anything away.

It is not, however, a full free trade agreement. It is not taking TTIP out of the freezer. TTIP is really far down in the freezer. For different reasons, it was not possible to advance under the Obama administration and it is not possible in any foreseeable future to advance now either and, of course (you too have mentioned it), also because the US have withdrawn from the Paris Agreement.

As I said, there are several disagreements with the Trump administration, but the US – the US people, the US elected assemblies, the US nation – is a friend of the European Union and we have every interest to try to find areas where we can cooperate, where we can talk, and where we can have a dialogue. This is the unanimous will of the European Council as well. That’s why we are asking you to agree on these two negotiating mandates. The Council is ready and I hope that you too can vote in favour tomorrow.

  Die Präsidentin. – Danke schön, Frau Kommissarin.

Herr Etheridge, ich muss Ihnen sagen, dass ich Ihnen nicht noch einmal das Wort geben konnte, da Sie schon eine blue card hatten und Zeitgründe auch dazu geführt haben, dass ich Ihre Wortmeldung nicht noch einmal annehmen konnte.

Gemäß Artikel 123 Absatz 2 der Geschäftsordnung wurde ein Entschließungsantrag eingereicht.

Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Die Abstimmung findet morgen, Donnerstag, 14. März 2019, statt.