Pending the Lisbon Treaty. The European Parliament is soon to express its views on highly significant aspects of EU commercial policy, before the Lisbon Treaty has even conferred any real powers upon it in this field. Legally speaking, at the present time, there is nothing it can do. The European Commission negotiates on a mandate from the Council, which takes the decisions. Of course, over the years, the Parliament has endeavoured to make its voice heard - albeit in a disjointed and ineffectual manner as happens when one does not hold any real power - with the result that it has managed to express some wishes, put out a few guidelines and give general support to the most indecisive projects (free trade areas with Mercosur or with all the Mediterranean third countries as a bloc) - which amounts to almost nothing at all. Everything will change with the Lisbon Treaty, which will make the EP a co-legislator with the Council. It is positive that the Parliament is preparing for this through its involvement in the important and fairly lively debates that are underway on subjects such as review of antidumping legislation and other aspects of “trade protection”, as well as protection against the scourge of counterfeiting.
Combating dumping and other unfair practices. This column has already set out the differences expressed in these debates on these subjects, and described the traps into which one can fall (bulletins 9540 and 9541). Under an outer shell of technicality that citizens find difficult to understand and to which superficial politicians are not drawn, the survival of a sound, extensive and high-tech European manufacturing industry is at stake. No more, no less. If there is not reasonable protection against behaviour that distorts competition (dumping, subsidies, monetary manoeuvring, counterfeiting), a large part of European industry will be condemned to disappear and consumers will be less protected.
Dossiers are complex: protective measures must not be protectionist, trade interests must not be ignored, certain production relocations can be useful for controlling manufacturing costs, and the economic interests of consumers must be taken into consideration. But the manufacturing industry is essential for Europe. Conflicts of interest are such that the organisation of European industrialists (BusinessEurope) does not hold just one unique position. The Commission has, on two occasions, deferred adoption of its proposals. Initially planned for 20 November, they were first of all postponed until 5 December and have now been put off till early January - and this is because, even within its ranks, opinions differ. How can one define Community interest which cannot be the same for manufacturers who have relocated their production to other continents and for those who manufacture on the spot, or for manufacturers and traders? And when situations also differ from one member state to another?
Two reports under preparation. The Parliament's resolve to make its voice heard is the new element in the equation. What influence would the Parliament hold if it shies away from a matter because it is complex or because opinions and interests differ? It must express its views, by majority vote if necessary. It is not formally consulted because the current treaty does not provide for this, but two “own-initiative reports” are being prepared within the international trade committee:
a) report on trade protection measures (antidumping, anti-subsidies, safeguard clause). The rapporteur is Christofer Fjellner, from the EPP Group, a Swedish national. Despite its lengthy preparation, the preliminary draft report is still not available, but is likely to be so in January. Debates, in committee and in plenary, are awaited with interest.
b) report on counterfeiting by the rapporteur, Gianluca Susta, ALDE Group from Italy. The aim is to prepare the Parliament's opinion on the international draft agreement which is envisaged on this subject by the main global trading partners.
Also under discussion within the EP are the bilateral agreements with Korea, with the ASEAN countries and with India, as well as the project aimed at making “geographical indications” compulsory on the origin of agricultural products. For the time being, expectations are mainly focused on the Fjellner report, the most urgent as the Commission plans to give its stance next month. The Parliament's opinion is also awaited with interest, as for example regarding Commissioner Mandelson's alleged intention to lift the controversial innovations of the draft regulation to be submitted to the Council in order to include them in the “guidelines” that the Commission plans to abide by when implementing the regulation. Many people and, it is hoped, the Parliament also would find it hard to accept such a conjuring trick.
(F.R.)