Since I have received a volume of correspondence on the Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (CAA), specifically on the proposed upgrade to trade relations with Israel, I thought it would be helpful to set out Labour MEPs’ views on this blog.
The Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (CAA) is a proposed Protocol to the existing Euro-Mediterranean Agreement and not a separate Agreement in itself, although it has also been referred to as ACAA.
The proposed Protocol is intended to eliminate technical barriers to trade in industrial products between the European Union and the State of Israel. It largely applies to pharmaceutical products, and is intended to align certain assessment standards in order to facilitate trade. In effect this means some of the benefits of the EU internal market would be extended to Israel, and would offer Israeli pharmaceutical companies easier access to the EU market.
Negotiations on the Protocol between the European Commission and Israel began in 2008 and concluded in 2009. The European Parliament was then required in 2010 to give its consent before the Protocol could be adopted. The International Trade committee of the Parliament decided to ‘freeze’ the decision-making process, and the item was not discussed again until 2011 when the procedure was re-started after the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats (ALDE) – the parliamentary grouping which includes the UK Liberal Democrats – changed their position on the dossier.
Many parliamentary groupings in the European Parliament including ALDE and the European Conservatives and Reformists, which includes the UK Conservatives, consider CAA a technical upgrade. The European Parliamentary Labour Party (EPLP), and the Socialists and Democrat group (S&D) of which we are a member, do not believe it is a technical agreement but rather a clear upgrade of trade relations with Israel which should not be approved.
The EPLP believes all EU external policy, including trade, must be coherent with our human rights policies. Any upgrade of trade relations with Israel in the context of the Gaza blockade and the illegal settlements is unacceptable and incompatible with recent European Parliament declarations denouncing the abuse of human rights in the occupied territories. Furthermore, the EU – Israel Association Agreement requires relations between the EU and Israel to be based on the respect for human rights, and any upgrade to this Agreement would be inappropriate at this time.
The rapporteur (MEP responsible for the dossier) has proposed a two year delay on the Parliament vote in order to allow more time for compliance with international law by Israel. David Martin MEP, EPLP spokesperson for international trade, has raised our concerns over this Protocol several times during discussions in the trade committee, and supports the delay in the vote. You may be interested to see his intervention: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video?event=20120327-1500-COMMITTEE-INTA&category=COMMITTEE&format=wmv
In July the European Parliament formally asked the European Commission for reassurances that goods from the Occupied Territories would not enter the EU under this preferential scheme. David Martin again spoke on behalf of the EPLP to reiterate that although these assurances would be welcome, he is still opposed to the entire Agreement for political reasons. You may be interested in the debate and his intervention here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/plenary/video?debate=1341334304140
Socialist and Democrat MEPs voted in favour of the two year delay in a recent vote in the International Trade committee. However the Protocol was unfortunately adopted by a majority of the liberal and conservative groups. The CAA will now be voted on by the whole European Parliament in its upcoming plenary session in Strasbourg next week.
Labour MEPs will continue to raise our objections to this Protocol and I will, of course, vote in line with my EPLP colleagues.
Thank you so much for the just and positive response. Millions worldwide will back you all the way. Naturally, once Israel adheres to its obligations under international /humanitarian law, we will change our position.
You didn’t say this when you voted on Morocco, which ahs been condemned for its abuses of human rights in Western Sahara.. You are applying different standards to Israel, which is anti-semitic.
@Andy Gill: I have no idea whether you are correct in saying that Mary Honeyball has applied different standards in her attitude to Israel and Morocco. But, whether the charge is true or not, why on earth do you leap to the conclusion that this is a sign of anti-semitism. Accuse her of inconsistency or hypocrisy if you really must, or suspect her of basing her priorities on some sort of political expediency rather than a disinterested Kantian moral framework, but please give us a break from this ridiculous notion that Israel must not be called out for its manifest crimes against the Palestinian people unless, in the same breath, one lists every other state on the planet that has committed similar or worse crimes. If you stop suspecting the majority of the planet of being anti-semitic then you might find it’s possible to have a reasoned discussion about human rights in the Middle East.
As a party member I am concerned and alarmed by this approach. It is not the way to treat the Middle East’s most democratic nation.
@Alex Pilcher: come on Alex, get off your high horse – you only need to look at the UN to see that any possibility of “reasoned discussion about human rights in the Middle East” is oxymoronic. Israel’s dilemma is and always has been existential – end of story.
This vote should be delayed until the illegal settlement in the occupied territories are removed.