Committee on International Trade Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
INTA European Parliament
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 5
I think it was very helpful and very, very good with the very flexible, haven't it? Yeah. You have to be very flexible. That's true. Yeah.
Speaker 4
I think, of course, we will come back to the discussion on the policy issues on the next point of the agenda together with the commission. So I think I stop there.
Bernd Lange
Yeah. Thanks a lot for this additional remarks. Yeah. And you mentioned the commission. And now I want indeed to invite the commission to give the feedback from the perspective of the commission to us.
And Miss Ritu Sambarta is here. And before I give her the floor, I would really welcome Angela Niebler here. She is a new member replacing Daniel Kaspari. Welcome to our committee, and good luck. And I hope you really enjoy being a member of this most important committee of the European Parliament.
So, commission. So, I was quoted in the press that I had a hangover after the outcome of the MC 14. What was the feeling in the commission?
Speaker 6
Good morning, chair. And if you would allow our director, mister Ambarta, could not be here today, so I'm happy to place her for this discussion. And I think we will join you with the hangover, actually. And first of all, thank you very much for the opportunity, for this discussion this morning on MC14, its outcome or rather the absence of outcome, as well as the possible next steps. And I think this discussion is very timely as we ourselves are still assessing the current situation, and we're in the process of defining our strategy for the coming months.
And I'm very much all right. Okay. Thank you. And I'm looking forward to hear the assessment of the honorable members that participate in the MC 14. So if you remember our previous conversation, as you know, the commission has approached MC14 as a stepping stone towards a broader and a forward-looking structural reform of the WTO that we had hoped would be launched in India.
We had volunteered proposals for a work plan to be adopted by the organization. But, of course, it was always very clear from the outset. So the outcome or the absence of outcome of MC 14 does not come as a surprise that the very strong divergences between the members did not augur well for substantive outcome. And what we've seen at MC14 is those underlying tensions basically taking over. I must say, looking back at MC14, there was this unfavorable context that I just described, but it was further complicated by a complex combination of constraints linked to agenda setting, format of meeting, and time management, which failed to foster interactive exchanges and walk towards compromises early enough in the conference.
As you know, so MC14 failed to deliver substantive multilateral outcomes except for three minor decisions covering a decision on the procedural aspect for future discussions on TBT and SPS measures, a work plan for small economies, and a decision on fishery subsidies we're calling existing mandates. So this is very narrow and very procedure oriented. Now despite this absence of the major topics being part of the outcome, we must stress that throughout the ministerial conference, we were very close to agreeing on what would have been a reasonable work plan on w two reform, and that would have included process to move forward the reform work. Across the ministry conference, we were able to update the so called old work plan, and it was modified during a series of discussion. And that would have provided the necessary framework we would need to start homework immediately.
And the text, as it stands at that point in time, contains all the necessary hooks from our perspective, from the EU priorities perspective to move forward on key issues such as level playing field, governance, development. And, also, it did reiterate a commitment to continue discussion on what we call foundational issues, which include the balance of rights and of obligations. So that product was there. It was a priori agreed before the end of the conference where none of those elements could be agreed. So we finished the ministerial conference with a set of unfinished business that were then deferred to Geneva.
So the ministerial conference has sent back the undecided items, which the chair called the Yaounde package, and I will come back to that. So what has been sent back to Geneva is this work plan on WTOFO that I just mentioned, the potential decision on the e-commerce moratorium, and also the ministerial decision on the, I would say, the classical TRIPS nonviolation moratorium. As well as, as that's number four, the so-called LDC package that contains a series of decisions pertaining to these developed countries. So from our perspective, while those elements have been presented as a package, I think moving forward in the coming weeks, we will consider each of them for its own merits and advance issue wherever possible. So we're gonna plead for treating those issues individually.
In particular for us, it's gonna be very important to see if we can salvage the work plan on WTOF form as well as moving forward on the e-commerce moratorium. On that point, as you can imagine, we deeply regret that no agreement could be achieved on the extension of the e-commerce moratorium. During the discussion, while we certainly have always promoted a permanent moratorium, we found that the renewal for 5 years was a good solution. And our priority now is to find a compromise before the general council of May, where this issue will be taken up again. And at the same time, we think it's essential that we extend the moratorium while continuing working on a permanent solution for the long term.
We're happy to explore many different options. I think we're gonna enter into this discussion as we were during the ministerial, in a very flexible fashion, and we will show flexibility in terms of the duration. But we see a lot of value in pushing forward a multilateral solution for the moratorium as well as the underlying work program that should go hand in hand with the renewal of the moratorium. However, the lack of outcome or multilateral outcome for the ministerial, we have to stress as well that there's been some advancement when it comes to plurilateral agreements. And there, the ministry showed that some of those projects can advance despite the context I just described.
This is true for the ecommerce agreement where 66 WTO members, which cover about 70% of global trade, adopted a joint declaration to advance with the an interim application of the agreement on e commerce. So at this point, we'll move forward in the coming weeks and months. A similar movement for investment facilitation for development, where we are very close to incorporate the agreement into the WTO rulebook except for the opposition by India. And there as well, the 129 members that participate in this agreement have signaled their determination to secure the timely entry into force and implementation of this agreement within the WTO framework. So more work will continue there to see how we can implement this agreement as well.
Concluding now on the next steps, so what's gonna happen in the coming weeks, of course, is one point in time, which is the general council of May, which is the body of the WTO that exercises the competences of the ministerial conference in between ministerial conferences. We are currently engaged with key players to discuss the issues, the different elements of the Yahounde package. We try to avoid going back on what was almost agreed in Yahounde. I said our focus will be very much on the work plan and the ecommerce moratorium, where we will privilege a multilateral track and, to the extent possible, avoid very narrow polarilateral approaches that could drive a wedge among members while offering a limited substantive benefit. On WTO reform, I think something very important is irrespective of any process on agreed text, as we have set out in our submission of January, we intend to continue advocating for deep and comprehensive reform.
We're gonna move ahead with advancing our priorities as they've been set out in that communication, discussing with other interested members who share us the same interest as us to move forward with the structural reform of the WTO. Because what MC fourteen has shown as well, despite the lack of outcome, is a very strong determination of most members to move forward with the reform. And in that vein, we are particularly happy and encouraged with the convergence that has emerged from our cooperation with the CPTPP countries where we issued a statement during MC14 pledging for common work in the area of reform, and this is something we will pursue in the coming months as well. So this is where we are from our perspective, and I'm very much looking forward to the discussion. Thank you.
Bernd Lange
Yeah. Thanks a lot. So I will start, and then I give my co-chair the floor. And then first, the members who were in Yehunde, and then I have another request so far. I have four questions.
So first, this WTO, is this still alive? Because, looking to the behavior of some members of WTO, and I read recently an article saying that the failure was on the shoulders of four members of the WTO. And if this is true, then, of course, is the question, can we convince this member states or the members of WTO to change their mind, like India, like China, and like US? Or is this really the end of the story? And linked to this question, second question, also European Union was a little bit under discussion also in our parliamentary conference because it was also not clear if we are staying to the core principle of WTO.
So the question of MFN, we had seen this orbit of Maro Shevkovic and also the question being flexible on MFN and reform this and where it was not totally clear what this means. So is this also one of the failures that we are not really clear about what we are wanting in WTO? Thirdly, on the reform or on the council, is there really a mandate for getting something specifically on the e-commerce moratorium. I heard different voices, say some saying, yeah, the council could now negotiate and also make a decision. Others say no.
There is no formal mandate adopted in the Ounde, and therefore, it's not possible for the council to get some results. And lastly, this 66 Route 66, No. This 66 members joining in the e-commerce agreement. Without also a clear link to the WTO, of course, there was the promise that we want to stick to the WTO, but there is no mechanism as such. Is this the way going in the direction of cooperation of like-minded countries, the middle power, like the Canadian prime minister said?
Jurgen?
Jörgen Warborn
Thank you. Thank you, Brent. The ministerial was a big failure. Ministers failed us. Ministers failed businesses.
They couldn't come together and sort out, well, mainly two things that I'd like to address: the WTO reform and the e-commerce moratorium. On the reform, first of all, we agreed, together with all the rest of the members back in MC12, that we needed to do a reform. This was once again at MC13 discussed and agreed. And then now we ended up at MC14. And it failed.
And of course, having the same discussion and not being able to move forward, everyone acknowledged that we need to do reform, and then it doesn't happen. It collapses. It cannot go on like that. We have to sort that out, or ministers have to sort that out. They are responsible to us as parliamentarians and not least to the businesses that do the trade, the traders, that in turn builds growth and jobs and creates prosperity.
So this blocking situation has to be unblocked. Think, of course, now the aim is to unblock it at the general council in May. And I'd like to know how the commission is working in order to achieve that because the minister has now blocked it in Yaounde, and the idea is that the ambassador would work to unblock it. Let me say, I think that will be very hard. There need to be pressure, of course, from the minister, of course, from us as parliamentarians in order to show that we need this reform.
I see three solutions. First of all, in article 9 of the Marrakech agreement, there is the possibility to vote. We don't use it. But I think it is time to use it. It's used in other international organizations.
So why not in this situation where we are at a crisis for WHO, let's go down that road. Let's vote so that we can do the reform. It's necessary. Second of all, we have to have ministerials more often every year, because ministers have to come together and put the political pressures, and it can obviously not be sorted out in the WTO bus bubble in Geneva. We need the political pressures.
So every year, ministerials at least. And then I think it's time to give businesses, the traders, a formal role at the table. They have to be listened to. They are the traders. They are the ones losing out, and all of us that are working for the trade business.
With this, I have one additional question for the commission and one initiative I'd like us as INTA to take. And first of all, to the commission, that's on the e-commerce moratorium. Because now we didn't even manage to go ahead. We actually went backwards. It lapsed, the moratorium.
That has worked since '98 or something. But we did have a small win in the 66 countries agreeing, also agreeing on keeping the moratorium. So have the commission done an analysis on what this actually will mean in a business sense? How much problem do we create? Because these 66 nations, of course, are a big chunk of the electronic trade.
So maybe, I don't know, maybe we don't need all 166 for the European businesses. Have the commission done that kind of calculation? My ask on the initiative, I think we, as PCWTO, should take the initiative to once again come together with IPU and restress our outcome document and send it to the ambassadors as a call from the members of parliaments around the world that we expect you to do better at the general council. Thank you.
Borja Giménez Larraz
Thanks a lot. Voya, you want to come in?
Thank you, chair. From my side, just to endorse, I would say the position on this and just to, yes, to show my disappointment of the MC 14 outcome that is clear. At the same time, I really believe that the adopted text of the parliamentary conference, it was well done, a success. It represents very clearly the position. Yes.
I would say the position of this European Parliament with the most-favored-nation principle must be preserved. The WTO rules on subsidies and the state intervention no longer reflect today's reality, so we have to try to update this. And, yes, I think that we should try it. We will be we were able to reach an agreement on this framework, and we should try to do, yes, the same and to try to follow this path, with the other member states, but just to follow the position of Jorgen. Thank you.
Thanks a lot. Pablo?
Speaker 9
Thank you very much. I participated in the delegation to the conference. I want to, first of all, adhere to what I heard from the chair and from colleague Warborn. I share your points. I and proposals.
I've seen, I would say, a lot of success from our parliamentary conference. I think the outcome document is very ambitious. Thanks also and largely thanks to our effort, but I think we were able to have support from all the members there, clarifying a clear support for multilateral trading system, for acknowledging the risks of the growing protectionisms and calling for the WTO reform. And I think we took also the right position on the ecommerce permanent moratorium. In fact, this is not reflected in what happened, but this that's why I also think that we should use the parliamentary instruments as much as possible, coordinating more with the rest of the world because we see a difference of ambition, I would say, between the parliamentary conference and what we have seen in the actual ministerial.
I was also happy to contribute to this paper on AI and global trade. In fact, we are going to vote also in INTA on the report on this, and it seems that we can position ourselves on this also at a global level. I mean, my question, in fact, to the commission, if I may, is that what we can realistically expect in terms of concrete deliverables in the Geneva negotiations, which we hope can really deliver something. In my opinion, the European Union should take a pragmatic but also principle-based approach on the WTO. So preserve what works, cooperating with like-minded partners while continuing to push for a deeper reform.
Speaker 10
I think this is a balanced approach that can help us position ourselves in the best way. Thank you.
Thank you.
Javier
Chairman, and good morning all. First of all, I'd like to thank the secretariat and both parliament and the political advisers for this. As you know, I go against repression in society, when we saw I wanted to say it was a good mission for us.
Javier
Hospitality was extraordinary. You must recognize that, and that was important. Now I wrote a little article before going to your own day. If you're to talk about this conference, it's time to be promoted by saying that it would not be carried out. Now we were there without too many expectations, and many were quite important.
So we kept defending here in our house multilateral trade, looking at rules for cooperation, and we were seeing how that would develop. Now I think that our conference was excellent. There was good, and we worked well. There was a lot of participation. It's true, given the situation.
We felt the lack of presence of our Latin American colleagues. They were in Abu Dhabi, but I think that it still went well, and I think this resolution is an excellent one. The beginning of the conference, we had the feeling that something was going to happen when the Turkish representative stands up and says that he's going to remove the veto to the facilitating tool for investments for developments, we feel that we're on the right way and also that we can go further, whilst others said that it was a disaster. Now I think what we should do is continue with our position and ensure that the delegation keeps working. And I would like to ask the committee to please send this idea further, that we should have an interministerial every year, once a year.
I think that's the only way we can bring pressure to bear. And finally, I'd like to thank the cooperation of the commission. They informed us. It all went very well. I've been to other previous inter ministerial com conferences, and it wasn't, it's not now I can't say the same thing here with the existing presidency of the union.
Speaker 13
I don't know what's happening, but I hope that next time, the presidency in charge will be a bit more active than this one.
Thanks a lot. Christina.
Katarina Barley
Katharina. Yes. Well, first, maybe start with some positives and thank everyone who joined. It was a difficult mission, but also a very nice group of people to work with. So thanks a lot also to all the staff who helped us prepare, and to the commission while we were there.
They were indeed very informative and available, and that's really important. I'd like to touch on two points mainly, the first one being our positions as the European Union as a whole. And as a commission, particularly. I think what did stir things up a little bit was the view or the position on the most favored nation principle. I think there was a bit of risky move because many countries seem to be a bit taken aback by what it meant by our questioning or it was a bit vague.
Right? So I think it would be important to make sure that at a time where the WTO is, needs us the most and needs political support, that we are very clear about what we mean when we put this principle into question. And so that maybe it's not so much, what we said, but the lack of clarity. And to not be seen too much as being aligned with the Trump administration on questioning this principle, but rather work more collaboratively. We need to be clear about what the endgame is.
For example, that's, you know, we should be clear that if there are countries that are not meeting their WTO obligations, there should be sufficient mechanisms at both WTO and EU level to address them. But also to be very clear about the fact that the goal of the WTO is to keep multilateral solutions at the forefront. And in parallel, we can consider that plurilateral approaches may be needed when it's impossible to reach political consensus for multilateralism. But in that case, the EU should always be very clear about under which conditions we will support those plurilaterals or not. And finally, also on setting conditions and setting our criteria very straight, I think that if we want to promote a club approach for certain topics, so for example, looking at critical materials, oh, sorry, critical minerals, it is very important to have a discussion about who can belong to that club, what is the membership criteria, and to include there things like robust environmental, social, and human rights clauses.
And finally, on the EU and as we go further in our discussions with the WTO, I think it's very important that we acknowledge that there are other demands that have been put forward by developing countries in the WTO on agriculture, on technology transfer, on the trips nonviolation complaints moratorium, and many of these or all of these have not yet been met. So when we talk about reform, we should talk about a global package on WTO reform that goes hand in hand with a solution to these historical requests of developing nations as well. And then a separate point to the EUs, but I think and I hope that you can also be a big advocate of this and continue to push for this, is regarding the role of civil society in the WTO itself. We would really like to echo we've asked this before the meeting. I would like to echo that there should be more attention from the WTO to guarantee that civil society organizations in the next ministerial in Saudi Arabia have sufficient physical space and also the freedom to do their job.
So that includes distributing leaflets, having banners, and having things pre-arranged with the secretariat. And this should be an essential clause when the WTO negotiates with a country that will host, that we can ensure that it is allowed to have openness, some degree of freedom of expression, and that civil society can do their job at these meetings. Thank you.
Lynn Boylan
Thanks a lot, Katrina and Lynne.
Thank you, chair. And I suppose I'll start just by thanking the secretariat for organizing the mission. It was my first ministerial council, and I know I could see the amount of work that went into organizing it and just to compliment them on a seamless mission. I'd also like to thank the Cameroonians for their hospitality. I think it's, you know, it was a very successful mission in that sense, maybe not less so in the outcome of m c 14.
But I think as we're reflecting on it today, maybe I'll start with change where we have agreement, and that is that I think we all want to see a stronger multilateral system. The divergence between us on the left and maybe some of my colleagues is just how do we achieve that. And I think personally going into, as I said, it was my first ministerial council, but I thought that the collapse in the talks was inevitable looking at where the various delegations were in those talks. I think the attitude of The US, the EU to a lesser extent, but certainly The US, you know, was blatantly self serving to anyone who was observing from the outside, and it did lack the concessions that developing countries have been demanding. And as my colleague in the Greens has outlined there, we have to give in order to guess.
That's how multilateralism works. So I think the approach that was taken by the US but supported to some extent by the EU, I think flies in.
the face.
Lynn Boylan
of multilateralism. And ecommerce moratorium is probably the most clear example of that because it was, again, very clear from the outset that The United States were there to boss for big tech in Cameroon, and to put their own interests over any real ambition to deliver sustainable reforms to the WTO. I think we're seeing countries we've heard attempting to advance plural laterals without a WTO mandate, as was the case at the March with the announcement of a plural lateral agreement on ecommerce. I think that what this demonstrates is that the MC14 was never really about reform, but it was about asserting power. And I don't think we will have success in WTO reform unless we accept that we have to give and take.
I also would like to say that the European commissions, maybe if I can call them musings, which is what they seem to be on the most favored nation because we had statements that were saying we needed to look at it, then they seem to be rolled back in the duration of the conference. I think that was very unhelpful and certainly was raised with other countries, as something that they didn't see coming from the EU. But, I think there is a real need for all of us to reflect on the process more broadly. I also would say that the ban on peaceful civil society demonstrations in Yuende is deeply regrettable. Civil society already has less access to this process than they would have in the COP process, for example.
And I would put it to the commission that by tolerating such moves, the EU is undermining WTO reform and is preventing that real and collaborative reform process. So I think what we all want to learn from the saga is if the commission doesn't want a repeat of m c 14, then we need to stop cheerleading The United States. We need to stop cheerleading the big tech oligarchs as they attempt to dismantle multilateralism, and instead work with global South countries, who are there to deliver real reform, which will support sustainable and fair trade.
Thanks a lot. And Céline.
Thank.
Céline Imart
You, chairman. Well, only the 14 ministerial WTO, European Union, woke up with a hangover so that the negotiations failed, and it's very clear and total. There's no improvement. The subjects increased, but also the fracture lines and national interests on many crucial elements become very clear. And we refuse to accept a reality which is obvious, and that the WTO, as it stands, doesn't work any longer.
Yes. International trade needs rules, but these rules have to deal with the world as it is, and not the way we would like it to be. Today, we're looking at the big, the great powers now follow this logic of power as a relationship of power. And here, the way we carry on with the WTO makes us really naive. It's not just a of preferring things, of improving things, but you need a complete change at the WTO.
So could this actually happen for an institution of this kind? Maybe during the next ministerial, we mentioned MC15 in Saudi, for instance. My second question has to do with the country agreement that we signed, the Cranberry agreement. Now we too don't use the WTO as the European Union. So there is a new European trade doctrine then?
Bernd Lange
Questions to the commission, and we expect some comprehensive answers and the vision for the way forward. Thank.
Speaker 6
Thank you very much, Chen. Thank you to everyone for your questions. And I guess we could organize a one day seminar on all of those questions that indeed will stay with us as we move forward with the reform. But I think there's one first topic that I should address, and this was your question, chair, about the WTO still alive or the last questions. I mean, are we aware that we need a strong and structural reform?
Absolutely. I mean, we were among the first ones to be extremely clear about our assessment of where the WTO is. If you look back at our submission of January and various intervention, including from our commissioner for trade, we are in a situation that is very sobering, and MC 14 is an example of that, but it's not surprising. We were prepared for that. We were anticipating that.
I think MC fourteen is a symptom of the problems that lies with the WTO for a long time. And here, we have been a very strong advocate for strong structural reform, and this is also why you might have heard some pushback while in India. And I think some actors like to portray the EU position a certain way, but what we've put forward is a very comprehensive, very ambitious reform program. And then we need to be very delicate on how we communicate about that, and I think that's a very important point that has emerged today in the discussion. Because at the same time, there is within the WTO system, which is, as you know, very broad, touch upon all aspects of global trade.
There's lots of elements that are working today and that we want to preserve. This is why we've put forward stability and predictability as the first objective of our reform. So any analysis of the current situation of the WTO needs to take into account that part of the organization that is actually extremely useful despite the current situation. And I think we've always been very clear about the significant value of the WTO for the EU. But then after that, we need to be able to be open to a reform that is comprehensive.
And I do hear a lot of voices this morning about taking into account the priorities of other members, and I think that's extremely right. We will not do a reform of the WTO without a multilateral consensus that includes, and as you know, the membership of the WTO is largely developing countries, so we will need to address some of the concerns there. And as you might have heard, we're working a lot with developing countries, including very close to us. But this means we need to be in a position where we can address all aspects of the balance of rights of commitment, all aspects of the WTO that include MFN. And I think it's very important that you can have a conversation about how commitments are structured, what are the exceptions to MFN, and how we link that to a future WTO with 166 members, and how can that work in the future.
And I think this is very important, and we will continue communicating on that. And I take the point of being very clear, because I think our position is different from that of other members. We have developed our own doctrine, and we will continue, and I think probably in the future, more concretely, for those ideas and demonstrate how that could be implemented. And this is also why we've been pushing for a work plan for months. And was very interesting to see in the reform process led by ambassador Albeck how many different issues can actually come together.
The report he did last December, which was very good, is a very good example of the topics we will need to address in the reform. And then there was this question that has been raised several times based on the example of the ecommerce agreement, but also other plurilateral on how that will be part of the future of the WTO. Clearly, this is an evolution that's been around for a long time. Viable geometry, plurilateral agreements that, of course, are linked with the question of the MFN and the structure of commitment, and the balance of commitments. So I think we cannot shy away from that conversation, and I don't think it would be legitimate to do.
This is why we're pushing for those issues to be at the forefront of the discussion. And this is why we think foundational issues, including MFN, but not only MFN, it's just one aspect of the whole balance of rights and obligations. This is what we want to discuss. So this is how I would approach the current situation from a more macro level and how we're gonna push forward for the reform. And as I said in my introduction, we have developed a vision and a plan in January.
We're gonna continue pushing for those elements. But an element that is very important in the coming weeks and months, we're gonna continue talking to like minded to other developing countries. We are in an action where we reach out to a country on a daily basis. Now moving to what we can expect from Geneva, and can the general council do this, I think this is a very legitimate question. Technically, yes.
The general council can exercise the powers of the ministerial conference. That is a technical part of it. But can the general council deliver on something that the ministerial conference could not deliver? I think this is exactly the question we're looking at for the next three weeks. It will not happen by chance.
It will require contacts between capital and heavy engagement at political level to change the situation, to change the picture like we left it on the Sunday night in Yaounde. So this will only work if there is indeed strong political involvement and strong involvement from capitals. Still as part of this question on reform and how the w two work, the question on ministerial engagement and civil society, I think it's a very interesting idea to have a ministerial every year. This should be part of the conversation we have, how we can structure ministerial engagement. I think we on the EU, we are very much involved in the WTO, but it's true that for many WTO members, minister only jumped every two years into the file, and that can be an obstacle for core compromises.
The exact timing and location for MC15 has not been agreed yet. There's one candidate indeed, but no agreement has been made yet. So this is something we still need to discuss. And as you know, when it comes to the role of the civil society, this is also for us a very important point. As you know, we've met civil society daily while in Yahounde.
We're promoting that vision, and this is something we'll keep in mind. Finishing then on the more specific question on e-commerce and digital. So here again, yeah, the general council has a mandate to do that. Technically, there's no problem. But again, this will require a lot of involvement between the key players and across the membership.
What we should try to avoid is that we resume the general council where we left things in Yahounde, which then would not work. The facilitators are active again as we speak, and we need to see how that develops. Now about the concrete impact of the moratorium having elapsed, I think this is a question we're gonna increasingly look at. There's no figure we can share right now. But indeed, we have 66 members that have committed to the plurilateral e-commerce.
We have to know that the e-commerce moratorium is also part of FTA practice of many countries. We have that in our FTAs. A lot of if you look at the FTA practice of our CPPP partners, for example, this is out there as well. But the reason why we're pushing very much for multilateral outcome is to eliminate the uncertainty that comes from those countries that do not have that practice in their trade policy, and this is probably where most of the value would come from. So I think I'll stop there for now.
Thank you very much.
Bernd Lange
Thanks a lot. Of course, we will come back to that, for sure. Looking quite closely at the result of the council discussion. And for me, it's really a serious issue, the question also regarding the behavior of different member states. So I guess everybody is knowing that Jameson Greer had an op-ed quite recently, some days ago, where he mentioned quite clearly that w two is nowhere on relevant trade issues.
Instead, it's spending time on silly fish songs. So that this whole is a clear perspective of the United States that they are not willing to be really engaged on that. So it is still an important part of our trade, no doubt about it, but we have to be clear how we deal with this institution in the future. And I will take on board the proposal by Jurgen that we use the outcome document of the parliamentary assembly once again to push the council and to make it once again public to everybody engaged in the WTO. Thanks a lot for this first debate after Journee.
I'm sure that will not be the last one. So next point is the delegation to Bern. We had quite an interesting discussion about the different agreements which were concluded at the end of last year. And we were in Bern to see what is the temperature in Bern, in Switzerland, regarding the ratification of these agreements. And we heard a lot of positive voices.
So it's totally clear the fourth biggest trading partner should be based on a stable relation. And, therefore, this package of a lot of different legislation was well received. But, of course, this Switzerland position of being sovereign and not part of the European Union, this was always coming through. So they want to be strong and independent. But on the other side, they want to be close to the European Union.
Until now, they started, similar to us, the ratification process. It was the package, the different legislation and explanation by the government, round about 10,000 pages. Really, a book was given to our parliamentary colleagues in Bern, and they will discuss it in the different institutions. So even I had to learn that the cantones are playing a big role in the decision making process, and the system is different to us. And the second big difference is that at the end of the day, there's a people's vote, a public vote about this package, which might be coming on the agenda this year, might be even next year.
So we will continue the dialogue with our friends in Switzerland, but it's a tricky issue. And therefore, we should really avoid any kind of disruption of our relation, which might lead to a negative approach in this public discussion. Two of the members, so one was Sorenna Sovko, and she is not here, but Jung will present her statement.
Jörgen Warborn
Yes. Thank you. Let me read out Siliana Sokos's statement. She says the following. During the visit to Bern, we held meetings with key Swiss partners from the Swiss parliament, the government, business and industry, focusing on the future of EU-Switzerland relations and in particular the ratification of bilateral three package.
A clear and consistent message was broad recognition of the importance of this agreement, as well as an understanding that there is no viable alternative framework for EU Swiss relation. While certain political challenges remain, including opposition from parts of the political spectrum, there is an overall awareness that timely ratification is essential. From the European Parliament side, we have been very clear in expressing our strong support for the ratification process. We see this agreement as a crucial step towards ensuring legal certainty, stability, and predictability for businesses and citizens on both sides. Discussions also highlighted the importance of reducing technical barriers to trade, ensuring a level playing field, and strengthening economic security in an increasingly complex global environment, particularly in the light of global trade dynamics.
In this context, stability and predictability of partnerships are becoming strategic priorities. The visit confirmed a shared commitment to advancing the bilateral relationship and successfully concluding the ratification process of the bilateral free agreement.
Thanks a lot. Javier.
Thank.
very.
Javier
much. I'd like to thank the secretariat very warmly for all the work that they've done. This was a very intense mission. It must be said we had 101 meetings with absolutely every delegation possible, but it was very positive. And we know, I think, all of us, that the relationship with Switzerland is intense.
It's quite full of ups and downs. And so we have to tread carefully, as has already been suggested by speaking on behalf of half of Zeljana. So we're aware of that. Equally, Switzerland is an extremely important partner. We've got a need to have a framework of stable relations with them, and we need to have legal stability and certainty.
So all that is very important. You've also said, of course, the Swiss are focused on independence, on sovereignty. They want to have oversight of their own policies. Fair enough. But we do need to see this in the context of the agreements that we have and that we aspire to.
We are not there to give them lessons, as Bernd has so rightly said, and there will ultimately be a referendum in Switzerland in which the citizens will vote. That's what happened. I grew up in Switzerland, and I know very well how Switzerland and its democracy work. And I know very well that you ultimately, the cantons, the trade unions, civil society are your interlocutors, and they're in favor of these agreements. So it should all come to a full end.
However, there is often an elephant in the room, and that is the case here. There is opposition, and so we will need to keep a watching brief on this. It's likely the referendum will be in 2028. It will be important to explain it to the Swiss citizens that there isn't a plan B. It's really important that they give a positive vote in this referendum, because we need a strong relationship.
We'll be mutually beneficial to all of us. If we want to build on what we have, they do need to adopt this, and we need to play our part by implementing and ratifying. So it is also true that there's going to be a referendum on a cap on the population in Switzerland, and that is a bit of an elephant in the room. It could have an impact on bilateral relations and beyond. Of course, we have a number of meetings in between times, and I wouldn't say that our work hitherto has been anything other than excellent, optimal environment.
Bernd Lange
Immediately to the next point, this is our ratification process of this whole package of the relation to this agreement to the relation with Switzerland. And I give immediately again the floor to Jung, replacing our Waffeterre, please.
Jörgen Warborn
And Sovko says the following. Switzerland is a trusted, like-minded, and strategic partner of the European Union with deeply integrated economies and highly interconnected markets. Our cooperation goes far beyond trade. Together, we are strong advocates of a rules-based multilateral trading system, particularly within the WTO, at a time when this system is increasingly under pressure. We are also facing shared geopolitical and economic challenges, from Russia's aggression against Ukraine to economic security risks and unfair competition from non-market economies.
This makes our partnership not only valuable but necessary. The modernized EU Switzerland package provides a stable, forward-looking and comprehensive framework that reflects the reality of our deep integration and adapts it to today's challenges. I would also like to underline that we were recently in an Inter Committee mission in Turburn, where we held extensive discussions with Swiss authorities, parliamentarians and stakeholders. These exchanges clearly confirm that there is strong support on the Swiss side to move forward with this package. This gives us additional confidence that this agreement is not only technically sound, but also politically timely and mutually supported.
By reducing technical barriers and aligning standards in key sectors, including medical devices and agri-food, the agreement will facilitate trade, strengthen supply chains, and enhance legal certainty for businesses. Importantly, it also delivers tangible benefits for citizens, ensuring clearer and more consistent rules for people living, working, and studying across our borders. The EU accounts for over 50% of Switzerland's total trade. Investment ties are equally strong, with EU companies representing over two-thirds of FDI in Switzerland. At this crucial moment, this agreement represents the right step forward to deepen our relationship with trusted partners.
Deepening relationship with Switzerland strengthens our economic resilience, our supply chain security, and our shared commitment to a rules-based global order. For all these reasons, as a repertoire, I clearly support this agreement. The committee on international trade therefore calls on the committee on foreign affairs to recommend approval of this package which consolidates, deepens, and expands our bilateral relations with Switzerland.
Thank you. First.
Javier
Of all, of course, I would like to thank the rapporteur for their excellent contribution. We have submitted a few amendments, and as a result, only very few, and I'd like to thank the secretariat and all the parliament authorities for their support as well. Obviously, this is a turbulent time in the global context, and I'm delighted that we have a stable relationship with Switzerland.
Looking at the map of Europe, of course, it is at the very heart of the continent, although it's not part of the European Union. I'm
As you yourself have just said, though, it is really important for us to have a strong and stable framework for relationship with them, with legal guarantees for both parties. And so this is a package which is bilateral and which should constitute exactly this sort of framework and package. Obviously, we've had our ups and downs getting here. There have been some rather intense moments and some ups and downs, as I've alluded to previously, but it is important that we now have this agreement far advanced, and I think we can deliver on it. I won't go into any further detail about it.
Just one or two further points. Trade is important, and, of course, worker mobility is a part of that, not falling fully under the auspices of trade policy. It is a very relevant factor. And so this is something that we do need to look at. We need to have equality of employment, for example.
Then we have also got to look at Horizon and Erasmus Plus, as with participation in these important programs. So the bottom line is it's very important that we make progress, that we go forward here, and I think we have a lot of positive signals on which we can build. I hope we'll be able to give our consent as soon as possible. Having said that, I do understand the concerns our Swiss friends have regarding the steel industry. There are two companies in particular which work closely with the EU.
And during the mission, when we were in Switzerland, we said that we would seek to do what we could to find a solution that would be helpful to them. Our chairman said during the actual mission that we would seek to do this because they have concerns that the industrial accelerator is going to have adverse effects on them. So we have reassured them that we will do our utmost within this house to ensure that the measures which we do implement don't have the adverse impact that they feel is a concern for them. My group certainly intends to support the ratification of these agreements, and I hope that we can continue in a very positive framework we've worked here. Thank you.
Danku Forsheder.
Speaker 19
Thank you very much, chairman. Just FYI, I would like to speak Dutch. As I said at our previous interim meeting, my group is keen to look at this package with Switzerland because it's something that we welcome very warmly. We feel that it's progress towards modernization, more predictable, and stronger, more robust cooperation with one of our most strategically significant partners. As Javier has indeed just said, the country is at the very heart of Europe.
It's also very clear through discussions we've had with the commission that the bilateral agreements that we've had hitherto are really superseded and out of date, and they actually have an adverse impact on some of the issues close to the heart of the citizens, for example, lack of recognition of certain pharmaceuticals in the EU. And so I'm happy that we've made the progress we had. I feel that the ratification of this series of agreements is a very serious matter, and we need to work to ensure that this is a success because the network of bilateral packet of agreements that we've had in the past, as I say, are now outdated. We've had really good meetings with the Swiss. We fully respect them, and we said this in Bern.
We respect their sovereignty and their positions. So I think we've had very positive exchanges with them, and I've heard all the warnings that have been issued about the lack of agreement. I think this is an agreement which shows that the EU can, if it's pragmatic and future orientated, be looking at trade in the right way and willing to embrace diversification. It can conclude very positive agreements, which are mutually beneficial. So my group is going to support the rapporteur in the recommendation of improving the council recommendation.
Thank you.
Very good. And to Vincent.
Thank.
Speaker 21
Thank you very much. First of all, this group, of course, welcomes the agreement with Switzerland because it's of the greatest importance to us that we conclude it. We therefore need to ratify it. It's important from the trade point of view, but it also focuses on health, transport, and various aspects such as food security, all of which are important to people. So it's an exemplary agreement, really, a template for potential future agreements, which could be a very good basis for protecting both consumers and producers.
Speaker 20
So we're very happy to see this modern template agreement, which we hope will be replicated down the line in other agreements. I'd like to thank the rapporteur for all the work that's been done. There are very close economic, political, and interpersonal relationships established through this, which will really help society. So we can build on multilateralism, which will and scientific cooperation. All this will be beneficial to the global community as a whole.
Speaker 22
And secondly, it aligns us better in climate policy. This is something we welcome. And thirdly, the social policy dimension is important. Just to expand on this for a moment, we have put forward amendments on freedom of movement, saying that we need to have social protection in this policy area. There needs to be equal pay for equal work.
Thank you.
Bernd Lange
Thanks a lot. Marcus, you want to come in on Switzerland? No. Good. Then, I give now the floor to the Head of Uniphos' secretary general, Western European Partners, Nicolas von Lingen, for two minutes.
Nicolas von Lingen
Thank you very much, Mister Chair, honorable members. Two points from my side. First, just to recall, I think, the point that several members made here about the strategic priority of this agreement and this package of agreements that we have negotiated with Switzerland. It will provide legal certainty, stability, and predictability. I think this is what the EU is offering to the world these days, but also in particular to Switzerland, and what we need in our relationship.
Speaker 23
Second, strategic priority because this is a set of agreements that are very good for trade, and they go beyond. They have dynamic alignment. They have level playing field provisions on state aid when it comes to electricity, air, and land transport. And they have also a progressive and an important dimension, which is at the core of our relationship with Switzerland, which is the free movement of persons, which is also relevant for the provision of services because it allows individuals to provide services in Switzerland and to also have posting of workers. The second point is also a point that I think some members made here, and you might have, and it's linked to the discussions that are going on currently in Switzerland in the parliament.
We understand that there's going to be an in-depth discussion in the same way this house is also having an in-depth look at this package. It's important that ratification takes place in a timely fashion. As I think you rightly pointed out, there is no plan B. And, actually, the later date or the more we wait for this agreement, the more we will have an erosion of the current agreements, which are currently already outdated, and we have seen it in the area of medical devices, but might be in other areas where the posting of workers where the rights are not the same on the Swiss side and on the EU side. We have already been forthcoming in that we have front loaded the union programs agreement.
So the association to Horizon Europe has started in 2025. This is important for researchers, and we expect this also to happen for students with Erasmus Plus in 2027. But until this is conditional on the whole package going through, hence the sooner, the better. Thank you very much.
Bernd Lange
Indeed. And therefore, we are working on that. And therefore, we also have a quite short deadline for amendments. But, Jung, you want to come or to conclude? So the deadline for amendment is April 17, quite two days, and at 12:00 high noon.
This concludes the public part of the interim meeting this morning. Of course, I expect everybody coming back at 3:00 in the afternoon. And we will start with the coordinators meeting in one minute, and you will cut the
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.