Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-03-Speech-2-117"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001003.4.2-117"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, our Group, the European United Left/Nordic Green Left, shares many of the considerations and opinions on enlargement contained in Mr Brok’s report and we appreciate the enormous effort he has put into his courageous report. However, we disagree on some important issues. Our support for enlargement goes without saying. We are also in favour of a European Union that includes Russia, and which therefore includes all the countries which have built – albeit in conflicting ways – this historical, cultural, economic, social and political reality known as Europe. The only condition would be – in our view – that they share our democratic values and respect for human rights and the rule of law.
Our disagreements with a portion of Mr Brok’s report range from points of detail to others of greater importance. We do not agree with Recital A where it says that Europe was divided by the Soviet occupation because, as everybody knows and as any history book will tell you, the division was a consequence of the Yalta Conference and the intransigence of Truman who was determined to follow a policy of confrontation.
Furthermore, there are six basic aspects which worry us because of the method employed.
Firstly, we are against the ‘regatta principle’, which seems more like an entrance examination which every teacher puts their pupil through when it would have been better for the pupil to sit the exam in stages and to a previously established timetable, which would have aided the rapprochement of the two societies, thereby preventing the adverse consequences we are now seeing.
Secondly, given the reality that the neo-liberal economic model established in Maastricht leads to the paradox of growth with more inequalities, the most likely outcome of the incorporation of these countries is greater unemployment and inequality, as is already happening. We should change our economic model in advance so that the cost of enlargement is not even more serious social inequality.
Thirdly, the great differences between European agriculture and that of the majority of the candidate countries mean that the current common agricultural policy should have been improved in order to ensure both the viability of our agriculture and the successful completion of the agricultural reforms in those countries. Nevertheless, everything is moving in the opposite direction owing, amongst other things, to the World Trade Organisation, which complicates everything.
Fourthly, and in relation to the use of FEDER funds, we believe that there should be more effort to show solidarity, and that is not happening, and the forecasts therefore seem to us be insufficient.
Fifthly, we also feel that the budgetary forecasts are not sufficient, since this is the first time that a major enlargement is taking place with a budgetary reduction and we only have to look at what happened in the case of the reunification of Germany to see that, in fact, a greater economic contribution is needed in order for this process to be successful.
Sixthly, we believe it has been a mistake to link enlargement in practice with the prior integration of these countries into NATO. This damages the Union, its future independence in relation to the United States and also a common European defence and security policy, since it also introduces risks with regard to Russia and other countries. We are therefore in favour of some aspects but not of others."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples