Irreconcilable positions. Recently I have highlighted the extent to which the actions of the European Parliament, including as a legislator, are now at the centre of Community activity (see, for example, this column in edition no; 9286). It is with the same candour that I am going to make some critical remarks. I am not referring, of course, to Parliament's stances: it is free to adopt whatever majority positions it deems appropriate. What I feel is open to criticism is sometimes to approve irreconcilable, perhaps even contradictory, positions depending on the issue of the day. If the debate is on relations with Latin America, the EP calls enthusiastically for a free-trade area with Brazil and the other Mercosur countries; if it is on the environment and animal welfare, the EP approves strict rules on livestock breeding in Europe and on animal protection, which are practically incompatible with international free trade. If the EP has a hearing with Peter Mandelson, it gives wide majority support to the EU's new trade policy which the Commissioner is announcing, based on major bilateral agreements the key objective of which is to create huge regional free-trade areas. But two days later, the relevant Parliamentary committee is equally enthusiastic in approving the statements by WTO General Secretary Pascal Lamy, clearly critical of this stance (seethe report by Emmanuel Hagry in yesterday's edition).
I could give further examples.
Pleasing everyone. In my opinion, these attitudes amount to not being able to decide on a courageous and coherent position and trying to please everyone. It is perfectly normal to want good relations with Latin America, and it is normal for a Spanish rapporteur to be particularly sensitive to this; but to call for a quick agreement with Mercosur to set up the world's largest free-trade zone is, in my opinion, playing to the gallery (despite reasonable and justified remarks on the potential for liberalisation of services and pointing out the scale of the EU offer in the agriculture sector; see Emmanuel Hagry's report in edition no. 9286).
In the same way, it is a good thing, I would go as far as to say essential, to strengthen European environmental and animal welfare measures; but the effects of this stance on import policy cannot be neglected. It is true that the report by Elisabeth Jeggle on this issue acknowledges that strict standards lead to additional costs for European livestock breeders something which, logically, weakens their competitiveness; but her conclusion is that the EU should provide compensation for financial losses incurred (see the report by Lionel Chargeur in edition no. 9285). This is unacceptable, in my opinion: financial aid instead of bringing production conditions more into line! Some agricultural organisations, and even some farmers, may be happy with that: but an attitude such as this amounts the gradual death of European agriculture faced with world competition which is not subject to the same requirements, if free trade wins the day.
The Parliament, on the contrary, should treat the protection of agricultural activity as a priority, taking account of the requirements which flow from it on the environment, safeguarding countryside and traditions, and the essential balance of land use. Who, if not Parliament, should be concerned with this? Possible financial compensation - which is untenable in the long run because it is being more and more challenged at international level and criticised at European level too - is not an acceptable proposition.
More detailed information. These general thoughts have to be backed up with more detailed information, I acknowledge. I suggest then returning to the two issues mentioned above next week: Latin America and Mercosur on particular; and the issue of the trade policy put forward by Mr Mandelson, Pascal Lamy's response and prospects for Doha Round resumption within the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
(F.R.)