5 Amendments of Luke Ming FLANAGAN related to 2018/0256M(NLE)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Emphasises that the preferential treatment granted for certain Moroccan fruit and vegetable exports to the EU under the agreement of 8 March 2012 concerning reciprocal liberalisation measures on agricultural products, processed agricultural products, fish and fishery products is a particularly sensitive matter for Europe’s horticulture industry, especially in southern Europe given the lack of traceability and differing standards;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Emphasises that there are still major competitiveness issues for European producers owing to the wide divergences compared with Moroccan producers in terms of labour costs, overhead costs, working conditions and environmental standards;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Draws attention to the fact that some of the fruit and vegetables exported preferentially to the EU under the terms of the agreement in question (including tomatoes and melons) come from the territory of Western Sahara, and points out that on the on 21 December 2016, the EU's Supreme Court that very ambitious plans have been drawn up with a view to further developing such production and exports; ruled that no trade or association agreement with Morocco could be applied to the territory of Western Sahara, since Western Sahara is not part of Morocco. Accordingly, the Court stated in § 106, the people of Western Sahara ought to be viewed as a third party to the EU's relations with Morocco. And for any such bilateral arrangement to affect the third territory of Western Sahara, the express consent of the people of the territory should be obtained;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Regrets the legal uncertainty that has arisen sinceat the EU has not respected the Court of Justice judgment of 21 December 2016; is concerned that the Commission has been unable to provide reliable data on preferential imports of products from Western Sahara that may have been carried out since that date, in spite of the judgment in question; wonders what the cost has been to the EU budget of any preferences granted during the period concerned without a valid legal basis; in the absence of sufficient comparative information, is doubtful whether the Commission is able to assess the impact of the proposed new agreement properly;
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Points out that the EU and Morocco have negotiated, as set out in the initial agreement concluded in 2012, an ambitious and comprehensive agreement on protecting the geographical indications and designations of origin of agricultural products, processed agricultural products, fish and fishery products that provides for the protection by Morocco of the full list of the EU’s geographical indications; points out, furthermore, that the procedure for concluding the agreement, which began in 2015, was suspended following the Court’s judgment of 21 December 2016; calls for that procedure to be resumed and finalised as soon as possible in conjunction with the conclusion of the agreement considered in this opinion.