EU Today’s documentary GSP+: The EU’s Silent Compromise premiered at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) on Monday 29th.
The afternoon screening, hosted during a meeting of the European Conservatives, Patriots & Affiliates (ECPA) group, was presented by EU Today and introduced by its editor, Gary Cartwright.
Focus of the film
The documentary examines how the EU’s Generalised Scheme of Preferences Plus (GSP+) functions in practice against its stated legal design. Under GSP+, eligible low- and lower-middle-income partners receive broad duty-free access to the EU market after ratifying and effectively implementing 27 international conventions covering human rights, labour rights, environmental protection and good governance.
The film reviews evidence presented by parliamentarians, civil society and industry on gaps between formal commitments and verified implementation. It also considers potential impacts on EU producers when preferences remain in place despite contested compliance.
Research backdrop
Alongside the screening, EU Today highlighted its research paper, “Assessment of Pakistan’s Non-Compliance with GSP+ Obligations: A Case for Suspension under Regulation (EU) No 978/2012.” The study collates official monitoring, parliamentary materials and stakeholder submissions on issues including freedom of expression, protection of minorities, labour inspection and due process.
In a statement to EU Today, Belgian senator Bob De Brabandere, a Bureau member of the ECPA group and organiser of the screening, said:
“It is incomprehensible that a country is granted GSP+ status, and thus duty-free access to the European market, while it does not even meet the basic requirements for it. In doing so, we are not only actively supporting with European taxpayers’ money a regime that despises us, but also fueling competition with our already fragile manufacturing industry.”
Discussion following the screening focused on three areas: the aid instruments available to the EU; the enforceability of GSP+ rules and conditions; and the reasons why the European Commission has not acted on European Parliament calls to suspend Pakistan’s GSP+ preferences. Two resolutions have been adopted in the Parliament, with a third reported to be in preparation ahead of the Commission’s next assessment of Pakistan’s compliance, expected later this year.
Council of Europe context
The Council of Europe is separate from the European Union but sets human-rights standards across the continent. Through the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights and PACE, it provides monitoring, peer scrutiny and jurisprudence that inform wider European debates on the rule of law and fundamental freedoms.
While the Council of Europe does not determine EU trade policy, its reports, resolutions and case law are widely referenced by EU institutions, member states and observers when assessing rights performance in partner countries. Hosting the premiere at PACE placed the film within this broader rights framework and facilitated cross-party, evidence-based discussion.
Themes and proposed approaches
The documentary presents case material where reported restrictions on civil society, pressure on religious and ethnic minorities, and weaknesses in labour enforcement appear to conflict with treaty-level commitments. Interviewees propose clearer benchmarks, time-bound corrective actions and transparent triggers for remedial measures within GSP+. Others underline the importance of predictability for partner economies, arguing that abrupt withdrawal of preferences may weaken reform incentives and affect workers in export sectors.
EU Today’s research paper recommends closer alignment between human-rights monitoring outputs and trade reviews, including interim milestones linked to specific conventions. It also calls for greater transparency in communicating findings and decisions, enabling partner governments, European businesses and civil society to track progress and assess risk.
Closing remarks
Introducing the screening, Gary Cartwright said the objective was to contribute verified material to a policy discussion that often proceeds on partial information. He encouraged delegates to raise awareness of the issues in their national parliaments. Positioning the premiere at PACE sought to support cross-party examination of how conditionality operates in practice and whether the framework is meeting its stated aims.
Read the research paper:
