Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-03-Speech-2-128"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001003.4.2-128"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, today when I flew from Stockholm, in over Germany and then drove on down to historic Alsace, I could not help but feel grateful for this Europe of mine. I was born at a time when, and in a place where, there has been no direct reason for thinking of war and calamity. Before I was born, freedom and democracy had triumphed over oppression and the insanity of war, and a European Union was being formed. Today’s young people take peace for granted, and mistrust has been exchanged for reciprocity. There have been strains but, on the whole, peace and trade have established a closer association between people, now further consolidated by means of the currency union.
Today, when we are celebrating the united Germany and discussing Parliament’s attitude to the enlargement process, it is important to have an historical perspective in order to be able to look a long way ahead and understand that today’s generation of politicians too have perhaps at least as important decisions to make in favour of freedom, peace and democracy. Few people believed that it was possible to reunify Germany. Everyone was surprised by the dynamism of that process, which was so skilfully handled by Chancellor Kohl. Without his strong support for peace, Europe would have looked different today. What began with individual people’s courage and longing for peace led to the odious Wall’s being torn down stone by stone.
Approximately ten tears later, we therefore now have a responsibility to history to join together in completing the reunification of Europe and strengthening the integration process. It will totally change the EU. As I see it, there are, however, no other alternatives and nothing else is more to be desired. If today’s European Union does not succeed with further enlargement, it will not be living up to its own ideals. In that case, it will, in my view, have failed in its mission and purpose.
I have been entrusted with the task of acting as rapporteur where Estonia is concerned. In Sweden, we stood Monday after Monday in a number of squares around the country in order to show support for our Baltic brethren during the liberation process. Our support and commitment continue – to a large extent, for our own sake. More powerful cooperation is needed when it comes to our common sea, the Baltic. We have a lot to gain from more trade and more interchange. The Baltic States are small coastal States bordering on a powerful neighbour. They possess a rich source of culture, diversity and potential which the united Europe cannot do without. Each one of the countries is to be judged on the basis of its own merits. They are not to be judged en masse or on the basis of some special geopolitical position they might occupy. It must be the results of the negotiations which count. Enlargement ought not to be postponed because of the need to keep to timetables.
As may be seen from the report, I am enthusiastic about what a country can achieve in the course of ten years of reform work. I am impressed by the political consensus that exists and by the leadership exercised by Prime Minister Mart Laar. The EU has a lot to learn from Estonia’s free trade agreement, the route the country is taking towards the new economy and the work it is doing on integrating its Russian-speaking population. Obviously, the foundations of the EU must not be weakened and the candidate countries must comply with Community legislation. However, many politicians in the EU seem more concerned with developing the Union still further and with raising standards. There seems to be no let-up in the desire to devise detailed regulations. This creates new obstacles for the candidate countries.
As I see it, the enlargement process ought not to be dragged out unnecessarily. It is now that we are in a position to secure common values and benefits. As a conservative, I am incredibly thrifty with taxpayers’ money. Through increased cooperation in combating, above all, cross-border crime and environmental destruction, we can make enormous gains. The environment is the area which will constitute a stumbling block in the negotiations. As I see it, decades of mismanagement due to planned economies and the inherent irresponsibility of communism are not Estonia’s fault and should not be a reason for delaying membership. If it completes the negotiations effectively and purposefully, Estonia has a good chance of becoming one of the Union’s new Member States.
I should like to express my gratitude for the good will with which my report was received by the committee. The only amendment which has already been tabled is covered in my report, but I am pleased that the Greens wish to emphasise the importance of treating citizens equally.
Finally, substantial progress is important if energy and will are to be demonstrated in the negotiations. I am a little concerned about the way in which Parliament has handled this report on enlargement. Many of the amendments and the committee’s proposals in the Brok report go beyond the level of what is required in the EU at present and may be seen as new hurdles. All credit to the rapporteur, Mr Brok, draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, who has tried, albeit without success, to get some focus into the report. Parliament’s task is now to reduce, not increase, the obstacles to successful enlargement across all borders."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples