Proposition 54K1271

Projet de loi portant assentiment à l'Accord commercial entre l'Union européenne et ses États membres, d'une part, et la Colombie et le Pérou, d'autre part, fait à Bruxelles le 26 juin 2012.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

July 16, 2015

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Colombia Peru trade agreement international agreement

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR VB

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo PS | SP DéFI PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

LE PP

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Dec. 3, 2015 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

by Mr. Stéphane Crusnière, rapporteur, refers to his written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, my colleagues, we already had the opportunity to say this when we rejected a similar treaty with Central America: my group wants decent work, human rights and social and environmental standards to be clearly at the heart of our diplomatic and commercial relations.

But this time again we are faced with a purely commercial agreement, which deliberately closes the eyes on the situation of human rights and the manifest non-respect of social and environmental norms, which prevails in these countries.

I was able to meet with many Belgian NGOs and local actors from Colombia and Peru, who all asked me the same thing: not to ratify this agreement, which, according to them, will amplify the inequalities and violations of rights that already prevail today.

In order not to stay there, I consulted a lot about these two countries and our economic relations. The statement is, unfortunately, without appeal. In Colombia today, violence against trade unionists, as well as against other social actors, continues, as many international reports testify. These reports show the enormous responsibility of paramilitaries, guerrillas, criminal gangs, state agents, in anti-syndical violence. In 2013, 26 trade unionists were murdered.

In this regard, we can only regret the rate of impunity: 90% of the murders of trade unionists for all these crimes, a violence that, unfortunately, is not limited to these murders, since the freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining are also largely compromised.

The problem around the earth is also a major problem and a source of violence and intimidation as in Peru elsewhere. In this country, the repression of social protest, especially around the problem of mines, is increasing. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights have called the current situation in the country a recession, including several laws criminalizing human rights defenders and violent repression of peaceful demonstrations.

For these two countries, trade unions and social movements deplore the asymmetric nature of this agreement. This will reduce their country’s tax revenues and constitutes a great uncertainty regarding access to natural resources, land acquisition, re-primarization of their economy, not to mention issues related to pollution, deforestation or access to drinking water.

Money laundering and financial instability are other sources of concern. In short, there is no guarantee of an interest for local populations by ratifying this agreement. There is no guarantee that social protection, decent work, human rights, social and environmental standards will be strengthened or even encouraged. The agreement does not provide for any possible mechanisms of control or sanction to ensure this. This is, as the name implies, a trade agreement. One point, that is all.

Faced with these legitimate concerns, these questions, the Foreign Minister’s answer leaves me somewhat dreamy or even perplexed, a little like a simple “Circle, there’s nothing to see!” However, there was some reluctance within the majority. Minister Reynders therefore proposed postponing the debate in the committee on this project, after drafting a note. In this note, we are proud to announce that we have commissioned the administration to prepare an annual general report, reflecting the developments in Belgium’s relations with the countries with which it will conclude a free trade agreement and/or an investment protection agreement. The first report of this type, which also covers Colombia and Peru, will be published in the first quarter of 2016, while the agreement is already in place now on a temporary basis. The proposal is therefore appealing and apparently sufficiently convincing for my colleagues, but for me it is largely insufficient.

The request made by some of us, majority and opposition, was to be able to assess whether this free trade agreement can actually provide a real economic, social, environmental and democratic added value for our country and the signatories.

To my colleague Miller, this always seems to be obvious. At first, it did not seem unbearable to him to prove it a bit scientifically. Here is the proposal made by Mr. Reynders does not provide any answers as part of the consideration of this bill as he undertakes to submit a first report only once this agreement has been ratified by our assembly. I repeat, the exercise is interesting but I don’t see how it allows us today to rule on the alleged benefits of this agreement.

It would ⁇ have required a thorough assessment of an expected pact in order to measure the risks, but also the possible opportunities. In this way, we could have made an informed decision. Unfortunately, we are offered to buy a cat in a bag instead. We will vote first; for the consequences, we will see later. However, once this text has been voted, we will not be able to go backwards – even if negative impacts were to be observed.

I would like to remind you that if we wanted to amend this agreement a posteriori, for example in the light of the progress report announced by Minister Reynders, this amendment could only take place with the consent of the twenty-eight Member States. In other words, mission impossible. For my group, this is unacceptable. This is in no way a serious and responsible work. We could and should have done otherwise, by producing an ex ante impact assessment of this trade agreement in order to provide us with all the tools to help us judge the relevance of its ratification.

We could have waited for the first progress report proposed by Mr. Reynders for spring 2016 before we pronounce. But nothing was done. Even this constructive proposal was swept by the majority, including the CD&V, which seemed to have some remorse.

My dear colleagues of the majority, you cannot say that you did not know. Many of us have warned you of the consequences of this agreement. Nevertheless, many of you will not take these elements into consideration when voting. My group and myself prefer, in any case, to operate the choice of a more just, more equal and more solidary world. Therefore, we will strongly reject this agreement.

The relations between the European Union, Colombia and Peru were, until now, based on a Framework Cooperation Agreement signed with the Andean Community of Nations on 23 April 1993. This text, while obviously trying to give a boost to trade relations, already reserved – I point out – an important place for the protection of human rights and respect for democratic principles.

Thus, €135 million has been allocated by the European Union to Peru for the period 2007-2013, in particular for state modernization, good governance and social inclusion.

In order to deepen these relations, negotiations began in 2007 with a view to concluding a trade agreement between the European Union and the Andes Community of Nations. In the absence of a consensus, these negotiations were continued with Peru and Colombia to conclude at the technical level in May 2010.

The text of the trade agreement was subsequently paraphed in March 2011. We know that Peru has interesting economic elements, but this country remains heavily dependent on the Chinese economy. The informal economy, the environment, the poverty that affects ⁇ a quarter of the population, government instability and the challenges of drug trafficking are of course worrying and we are as concerned as much as you, Mrs. Grovonius.

Colombia is largely dependent on the prices of energy raw materials. She is, unfortunately, also affected by drug trafficking, by social inequalities, one feeding the other and the other. The image of Colombia has long been attached to that of the civil war against the guerrillas and more specifically the FARC. Now, a peace and reconciliation process has begun, and it should bring Colombia into a new phase.

Mr. Miller, I hear that you are explaining the emergence of drug trafficking by the social problems present in Colombia but you are forgetting an essential phenomenon in the work in Colombia, which is land seizure. The fact that today peasants who embark on coca cultivation have been rooted out of the regions of origin because Colombian and also European and American companies invest in land and relegate peasants to less performing and interesting portions of land and thus cultivate coca.

The basis of the social problems that explain the emergence of the FARC – communists who mobilize the social distress in which these farmers find themselves – but also coca are not only linked to social problems. The latter is related to the demolition of the peasants. If you do not solve the problem of the rooting out of the peasants by giving them land, you will therefore not solve the problem of coca, nor that of the emergence of a communist guerrilla which, of course, carries these rooted populations.

Mr. Hellings, you insist on an important point. I do not deny it. But this is precisely why I think this treaty must be absolutely supported. Building on the European Union and considering the importance of markets with the European Union, it will be possible to make improvements.

I continue my reasoning. There is, for now, a process of peace and reconciliation that will allow, we hope, to bring Colombia into a new phase of its history. This is a phase that people are waiting for and hoping for. It is, in my opinion, a lack of courage to officially reject the idea of a treaty simply on the basis not of ideological considerations – I also have ideological considerations that I respect; it was therefore not pessimistic on my part – but rather on the basis of analyses. This is a lack of courage and volunteerism. It is a little too simple to play the beautiful soul, saying that this type of treaty is not suitable because, in these countries, there is no social, trade union or sufficient protection for women, etc. We prefer to develop treaties that drive these populations forward. This is our vision of globalization.

Mr Miller, Mrs Grovonius would like to intervene.

I should have gone to the tribune, Mrs. Grovonius. I would have seen you better.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Miller, you see, the power of flowers has a certain effectiveness!

Mr. Miller, I ask nothing better than to base myself on facts. What I ask you from the beginning is to present to me studies, figures, facts scientifically documented and that demonstrate to me that by signing such agreements, we will be able to bring Colombia and Peru to a much more comfortable situation from all points of view.

That is what I ask. I do not ask for better. I don’t want to stick to the ideology. On the other hand, as far as you are concerned, you are starting from the basic ideological principle that, through this type of agreement, one necessarily achieves an improvement in well-being.

I have no difficulty in this matter. Show me the opposite! I would be very happy to be able to discuss a text and vote on it with knowledge of cause, which is not the case today.

That is why, Madame, our group welcomes the proposal made by our Minister of Foreign Affairs. Why Why ? Because it has committed to producing, at the beginning of each year, a report that will contain an assessment of the ‘human rights’ component, in the broad sense of the term, within the countries with which we have concluded free trade agreements.

You are asking for a sort of assessment of an agreement that will only be voted today!

I know, Mr. Hellings, that you will tell me that it is already applied, etc. What we are interested in is to proceed to the ratification of this text, so that it can be fully developed and controlled according to the standards of the European Union.

Mr. Miller, how can you convince me to vote on this text today?

I told you, this is only a kind of belief in the benefits of liberal trade policy.

I have understood this very well!

That is why I am a liberal. In my opinion, countries that deal with each other on a trade level have a level of living, development, and security that is more enviable than that of the people who live in territories that have not signed this kind of agreement.

This remains to be demonstrated! And I would not ask better that you prove it scientifically. What you propose us today is to vote on an agreement that is already in force. You then tell us that we will examine the consequences of this agreement within five months. This is completely irresponsible, Mr. Miller!

I ask that a text be voted from the moment the Minister of Foreign Affairs has made the excellent proposal that one can evaluate the evolution of the human rights situation in these countries after a certain time. How do you want a text to be evaluated if it has not yet been voted?

The assessments of an ex ante pact exist. This is done all the time for a lot of projects and it can also be done for agreements. In addition, it is already in force, so we could already assess its impact today.

Mr. Miller, I will reflect on what you said about your belief in international trade to improve the well-being of people in both the North and the South. There is a precedent, it is the Free Trade Agreement between the United States and Colombia. Did the Colombian people live better after the Free Trade Agreement? What has been found in the case of the free trade agreement between this major trading partner that are the United States, comparable in strength and power to the European market, and Colombia? There has been a growing phenomenon of latifundia (large landowners). There was a land seizure. We have seen massive investments in mining areas, where the peasants who once occupied these lands were relegated to the borders of Colombia before becoming open-air mines, with the ecological and economic consequences we know. There is a precedent. Free trade agreements don’t bring well-being to Colombian farmers, except ⁇ to U.S. or European shareholders.

On the contrary, We forced them to burn their seeds because they were not valid. I have explained this to you a long time in the committee, I will not return to this episode. This is the consequence of free trade for Colombians, Mr. Miller.

Mr. Speaker, I will not be able to convince Ms. Grovonius, and she will not be able to convince me. As for mr. Hellings, he knows how much we share the concerns he raised. I will answer you briefly, Mr. Hellings, in order not to prolong this confrontation of ideas that will not convince either of us. What we are talking about today is not an agreement between the United States and Colombia, Mr. Hellings.

I am a European and I have a deep belief in the values of the European Union. When there is a trade treaty that must be carried out by the European Union, I really want the values that are on the forefront of the European Union to be defended also at the level of the treaties that the European Union can accept and implement. This is one of the main areas of cooperation with the European Union.

The Agreement contains, in Article 1, a reference to democratic principles and fundamental human rights allowing the suspension of the Agreement in the event of human rights violations by one of the parties. The EU is also very explicit about the obligation, in the leadership of these two countries, to implement the eight fundamental conventions of the International Labour Organization. It is nothing anyway. Having a contract will enable this verification.

I repeat, our Minister has pledged to produce at the beginning of each year a report that will contain an assessment of the human rights aspect in the broad sense within the countries with which we have concluded or will conclude free trade agreements. We strongly welcome this way of working.

I am convinced that this free trade agreement should strengthen economic trade and investment between the European Union, Peru and Colombia. I am also convinced, ⁇ by ideology, that this agreement, like other similar agreements, will allow these countries, these peoples, these individuals to enjoy the individual and collective rights and freedoms we enjoy here in Europe.

Mr. Miller, two colleagues would like to speak. You have the last word, Madame Grovonius.

Please let him finish his sentence.

Mr. Speaker, I have finished my speech, although I still want to say one last word to Mrs. Grovonius.

by Mr. Germany also wants to speak.

I think this agreement is the story of the bottle half full or half empty. Let’s look at the photographs, the situation of human rights, the situation in general of governance, the situation of violence in Colombia, for example, because it’s a lot about that. A few years ago, it was dramatic. I think there are positive developments in Colombia today. A peace agreement with the FARC is essential. And there are a number of developments that I think are favorable.

The situation is far from being formidable. This agreement is just a trade agreement. It could have been larger, it could have been more ambitious. There are still a number of problems. That is why we propose to abstain. I think there are developments. We would have opposed each other a few years ago, we do not oppose it today, but I think there are still some problems.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has proposed a mechanism. I think that is a good thing. I have proposed that this mechanism should be accompanied, or rather consolidated, by fiscal and governance components. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, in the committee, told me that this is of course. Particularly in tax matters, I have also proposed a series of indicators, in order to verify on an objective basis the evolution of the situation in these countries, as well as in other countries with which we have or will have trade agreements and association agreements.

Again, I think that the situation in these countries, and especially in Colombia, is not yet satisfactory, far from there, but that there is a process. Personally, I do not want to oppose this process and the conclusion of these trade agreements.

I would like to thank mr. From Germany for its appreciation and for stressing that there is a positive development in Colombia. It seems to me that it is our duty to do everything we can to try to promote, to strengthen the peace process, especially through a policy of economic revitalization, through trade treaties.

This is the position of our political formation. I suppose that mr. The Minister will also respond to the concerns you have expressed, Mr. Dallemagne.

To conclude, I wanted to say to our excellent colleague Mrs. Grovonius that we also want, as you said, a more just world, a world where there is more well-being for the peoples, a more equal world. But I feel that with your attitude, it is ultimately a more just world for you, and maybe not for everyone.

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. We spent a lot of time in the committee to discuss these texts. Our group will vote against and I will now vote against that behavior.

Colleagues, for us, the determining test for a vote for or against was whether the treaty contributes to the political stability and economic growth of Colombia and Peru. Some colleagues have already said that the debate was a lot about this. The minister stated that the treaty promotes economic growth and we asked if he could make that statement hard. We have not received any response from the Minister in this regard, except the commitment to prepare an annual report, but this is mainly about respect for human rights and not about the economic implications of those agreements. Therefore, we have not received a response.

I have already ⁇ in the committee — Mr. Hellings has already referred to it — that the current treaty, which will be approved by the majority later, is very similar to the treaty between the United States and Colombia. The effects of that treaty are as follows. In 2011, when that treaty with the United States was not yet in place, Colombia had a trade surplus of $3 billion in relations with the United States. In 2014, Colombia had a deficit with the United States. Therefore, it is clear that the treaty did not improve the economic situation of Colombia.

The question arises how that comes and there are several explanations for, which I will not all give, but experts say that two reasons are important. These reasons, unfortunately, also apply to the treaty that the European Union will conclude with Colombia and Peru. The first reason is that these two countries are pushed into the role of raw material exporter.

The second reason is that these two countries are obliged to open their markets to American and large European companies, resulting in medium-sized Colombian and Peruvian companies being pushed out of the market.

Mr. Minister, we had asked to clarify why it would be different with the European treaty than with the American treaty. We have not received a response. We note that it is very similar and we fear that it will have the same effects.

So do not say that the adoption of this treaty will contribute to political stability – it will, on the contrary, lead to greater poverty in this country – and ⁇ not to economic growth.

Today we received another message from the Belgian knowledge group Be-cause health, which points out that the American and European treaty for the major pharmaceutical companies from Europe and the United States imposes on Colombia and Peru that the patents on the European and American medicines will have to work much longer in time and that it makes it difficult, if not impossible for them to use cheap white medicines. This will be a major problem in Colombia and Peru. Outside the major cities, a healthcare system is being developed that runs on cheap medicines. This is complicated by such treaties.

Third, the Convention calls for compliance with social, environmental and human rights standards. The colleagues who will vote in favour say that this treaty provides Europe with a lever to improve the social, environmental and human rights situation in those countries.

Colleagues, I look forward to the Minister’s Annual Report with great interest, but the little benefit that the Annual Report will have will be that we will be able to examine something here and there. I give it to you on a sheet: the enforcement mechanisms contained in the treaty are weak. Practice teaches that similar European treaties, with similar sanctions and enforcement mechanisms, do not work, let alone there is the political will to apply them, by Europe or the States concerned. We also believe nothing of the argument that this convention will lead to the development of better social, environmental and human rights standards.

For these three reasons – no economic growth, no more social and therefore political stability and, third, no leverage to strengthen environmental, social and other rights in those countries – our group will vote against.

The stated objectives of this treaty, and I refer to the text, are the intensification of trade between Colombia, Peru and the European Union, the improvement of access to the public market for the different companies of the two entities and the creation of a common discipline on intellectual property rights. There’s the issue of drugs, as our president has said. Van der Maelen, but also the issue of seeds. The treaty hopes, in this context, to improve the issue of human and social rights, and to ensure, Mr Miller, that a series of ILO standards are applied by Colombia and Peru "all of this allowing regional integration in the Andes area." It is about ensuring that not only Colombia and Peru, but also Ecuador and Bolivia can be part of this trade set. That is the premise of the treaty. As you said, Mr. Miller, and as the Foreign Minister pointed out, it is trade that will bring not only economic prosperity but also social, environmental and human rights.

What is found concretely? On the one hand, when we listen to the Foreign Minister’s intervention, the aim of the European side is to offer new trade opportunities for the big “exporting industries of the European Union.” The minister cited the automotive, chemistry (fertilizers, seeds, etc.), pharmacy and telecommunications. What can Colombia and Peru expect from such a treaty? The minister replied: "The European Union will open its market to Colombia and Peru for industrial and fishery products and will offer tariff concessions on large agricultural exports."

In what context will we ratify this trade agreement between Colombia, Peru and the European Union? Our industries and some of our leaders believe that Colombia and Peru are agricultural and mining eldorados. This is undeniable: wealth is very important. In a context where, for decades, a communist guerrilla, relying on a detrimental social situation of peasants uprooted from their lands by the appearance of large latifundia, feeds on a social despair made of the seizure of land and the emergence of an extractive industry extremely vorace in land, and therefore in spaces for farmers who, until then, were the supporters of a rather family and food-saving agriculture.

Let us not forget that the problem of coca and the emergence of a true coca-oriented agriculture comes precisely from the seizure of land and the de-rooting of peasants. If the peasants could have remained in the place where mines were opened and latifundia created, these peasants would not have gone to the border of Colombia, to areas that are not controlled by the regular army and where the FARC and coca culture emerged.

Under these conditions, the repression of trade union actors is the strongest ever seen in the world. Colombia is the place where trade unionists are most widely locked in terms of population. So, the heart of the problem in Colombia is related to the poor distribution of land, despite the existence of two laws that redistribute land and prevent people from possessing x hectares maximum.

Today, one of the social problems is the orientation of the Colombian economy towards the extractive industry and the exporting agricultural industry.

In this context, will the trade agreement remove the cause of the problems seen in Colombia? Our point of view is that, on the contrary, it will amplify them. Take the simple example of the imports that Belgium wants to see advanced through the trade agreement with Colombia and Peru.

by Mr. The minister replied that our industries were waiting for exotic minerals and fruits. This is what is stated in the report. In these areas, it is not small-scale peasant agriculture that is concerned, but the large multinational companies that, in order to produce these exotic fruits or extract this mineral, have had to go through a process of land acquisition, at the basis of which are all social problems.

A report on human rights that would be distributed on our banks each year is a sex cache or umbrella. Indeed, until now, at no time, even though we have here ratified treaties containing social and environmental clauses, never has our State or the European Union suspended any part or all of an agreement in the name of the fact that the social and environmental clauses were not respected.

I take the clear example of Qatar and its construction sites for the 2022 World Cup, where social and environmental rights are violated. Belgium has a trade agreement with Qatar. Nevertheless, our country has never activated a suspension clause. She may have claimed some things, but she has never activated suspensions.

I repeat that the basic problem is the poor distribution of land. Is free trade the solution? We do not think so. This did not work within the framework of the free trade agreement and the treaty between the United States and Colombia. The main problem calls for a national measure, an emancipatory and national policy of equitable redistribution of land that will dry up the FARC recruitment base but also the cause of coca cultivation.

Rather than ending violence or hoping that this free trade treaty will help the peace process, we, environmentalists, fear that this treaty will amplify the phenomena underlying these violence and aggravate them. For this reason, we will vote against this bill introducing this treaty into our law.

There is no doubt that we will vote against this agreement.

First, I will make a small general consideration. In the history of international politics, it is often noted that the seekers of free trade are, every time, the strongest nations from an industrial and economic point of view. It is always the strongest nations that can compete, win the competitive battle on the domestic market of other countries. The debate has been around the world for 150 years. This has taken place among the industrial powers. Remember when England wanted an open market, while other European countries preferred some protectionism. The situation has not changed.

Through free trade agreements between developing countries and industrialized countries, who wins in the end? These are the companies that have the most capital, the most industrial and scientific means to conquer each other’s market. This is what is happening in all countries. I could have explained it here in the room. I worked for two years in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We see how many foodstuffs that come from the West, ⁇ from Belgium and France, completely break the domestic market, whether it be for eggs, onions, etc.

We fear that the same phenomenon will happen again in the South. Fortunately, and I’m glad, we’re not the only ones who think so. More and more Latin American states themselves have politically understood this reality. Other political parties came to power. A new wave of progressive men and women politicians has come.

These states themselves have called for the withdrawal of these mechanisms. I am delighted to see that countries like Bolivia and Ecuador have already withdrawn, which now leads us to sign an agreement with only two countries. I would like to use my speech to congratulate and encourage all Latin American peoples to continue their struggle for economic independence from the northern countries.

Let's go to Colombia and Peru, two countries that have not yet taken this step. I don’t think that’s good for them or us. The agreement lists all the benefits: €16 million for chemicals, €33 million for the automotive sector, €60 million for textiles. We list all the things that we can do on our part. Unfortunately, what can be gained on the other side is not much developed. The reason seems to me to be quite clear: our intrusion into the domestic markets of these countries will take away acquisitions.

Take the example of Peru. The anecdote is funny: today we are asked to vote for something that is already in place, which is gradually becoming a habit in European democracies. Peru did not have a patent policy on medicines. Since the introduction of the agreement with the European Union, we are now five years away from patents and resolutions are being prepared to move to eight years of patents. Why Why ? Because multinationals are putting pressure on them to be able to patent all the products they sell there, ⁇ seeds. The issue of seeds is very important for countries like Peru and Colombia. Sometimes it even takes political and military turns. Land grabbing, the purchase of land by large multinational groups, is one of the fundamental problems in the non-agricultural reform of these countries. This policy of land grabbing has as its consequence that the land that can be seen in our countries as a commodity beast for sale is often an existential condition for peasants in Peru and Colombia to be able to exploit their own land, from which they are hunted.

I believe that the measures proposed today in this agreement will not go in the direction of improving the social conditions of Peruvian and Colombian peasants.

We have already talked about human rights. I would like to remind you that Colombia is one of the countries where a large number of unionists have been murdered; therefore, we are not just talking about closure.

Twenty-six unionists were murdered in 2013, thirty-five in 2014, seventy-nine in 2015. This is the colombian landmark. These are “business as usual” agreements. We don’t ask too many questions, but the most worrying thing is to learn who is behind these murders. It is very regrettable to see, as several investigations have demonstrated, that multinational companies active in the field, ⁇ Nestlé and Coca-Cola, contribute to the financing of paramilitary groups. We are therefore witnessing economic looting, as described in this type of agreement, and a persistence in inaction in the face of the political and military oppression that strikes in these countries.

Dear colleagues, Mr. Minister, I will not be surprised to say that this agreement is not very enthusiastic to us. We will continue to mobilize with social movements and other political parties against such agreements. I hope that the wave of Latin American countries wishing real independence and the development of a self-centered and autonomous market will surpass Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador and will be able to work towards the construction of an independent continent that will weave equitable relations – not relations of dependence on the European economy, as we have known them for fifty or sixty years.

Mr. Speaker, we have had extensive discussions in the committee, but I will still give a few comments, first on why support for free trade. It is more than a tradition. The expansion of the European Union, year after year, to 28 European countries was a very great success, not only in terms of trade, but also in terms of human rights; it has also made very great progress in southern and eastern Europe, compared to the past. The same applies to the environment and social rights of many workers in the European Union.

The same reasoning applies to the federal level and the Provinces, for example in the relations with Colombia and Peru, for which we organized foreign trade missions in October 2014, at the request of the three Provinces, to examine the possibilities for our companies for more trade relations with Peru and Colombia.

There were questions about possible progress for Peru and Colombia. One of the key points of such an agreement or agreement is the opening of the European market to exporters from Peru and Colombia, through the immediate liberalisation of industrial and fishery products and the commitment of tariff concessions for the agricultural sector. We try to provide more and more support, including to other countries, outside the European Union, with an evolution towards free trade.

The second observation should reassure Mr. and Miller. He is not alone in Europe, despite what we hear tonight in our assembly.

Of the 28 member states of the European Union, 25 have already ratified the agreement. There remains Greece and Austria, and this will ⁇ not reassure some groups, but the French National Assembly has just ratified this agreement and the Senate has yet to decide.

In our country, with various majorities, the German-speaking Community as well as the Flemish Community have already ratified it. I know the majority of these different Communities and I am sometimes surprised. I will not return to the discussions conducted in committees on the contradictions found depending on whether we are at the level of federal entities or at the federal level.

In the European Parliament, the EPP saw 232 of its members vote for and 9 abstain, without voting against. In the Socialist group, 119 members voted for, 37 against and 14 abstained. This should reassure Mr. and Miller. I confirmed this in the committee following a question from Mr. by Van der Maelen.

At the request of Mr Van der Maelen, I confirmed this in the committee. The support is extensive.

At the European level, the socialist group sp.a voted against. With the PS, that was different. There were two abstentions in the PS. It is very democratic to have different opinions at different levels. There was a “yes” vote in the German-speaking Community, a “no” vote at the federal level and an abstinence at the European level. It’s not always easy to follow that voice behavior, but I try it, although that’s not my first task.

I come to the third point, which relates to the progress made in the countries we are negotiating with, including Colombia and Peru. Specifically for Colombia, for which many remarks have been made, the unemployment rate fell from 12.2% in 2010 to 8.7% in 2014. A number of European countries would like to be aware of this. In any case, this is a progress that should be welcomed. Better yet, for the first time in a long time, we are convinced that a peace deal can be reached between the Colombian authorities and the FARC. Is it in such a time that we should oppose active support, ⁇ through this type of trade approach with Colombia?

I would like to add that, as is the case at the EU level, there are more and more regional free trade agreements. In all these regions, including Latin America, the desire is to integrate more and more markets, to move to more and more open markets.

This is the first report I will submit, for the first time, on my own initiative. I do not want to convince you at all, Mrs. Grovonius, but know that what has been asked in the committee corresponds in all respects to what is proposed here. You may be asking for something else, but the Commission and the government have agreed that a report aimed at reviewing trade agreements would be submitted each year, including, of course, regarding the impact of these agreements on the trade – this is the slightest of things – but also their impact on a whole host of other areas, including environmental and social matters. And as many have requested, the report will be reinforced by the reports of a whole host of international organizations, including the European Union, but also our diplomatic posts in the countries concerned. A whole host of other agreements could be evaluated, whether at the tax level or in other areas. We will try to see what conclusions can be drawn. We will ask ourselves whether improvement or modification proposals should be made and submitted. In any case, this is the first time we have engaged in an exercise of this kind in all agreements that have been concluded in the past.

This is what I wanted to say after the extensive discussion we had.

To prevent the debate on the report being discussed from taking place too far away, I have proposed working on a first report as of the beginning of next year. This will not be a piece to break. I think it’s going to be very good, I know my team members. This will, in any case, allow us to conduct a very prompt discussion on the assessment of the effect of these agreements.

If the Parliament wishes that one or the other agreement be emphasized more specifically, of course, we will act in this way.

I would like to thank all the groups that Mr. Miller has managed to convince and who will probably vote, for one part in any case, this text, or even who will abstain, which is already a gesture in the right direction.