Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-04-Speech-3-087"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001004.7.3-087"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
I voted against the Brok report on the enlargement of the European Union, because whilst it may be very clear-sighted in technical terms, it is nevertheless prompted by mistaken political ideas about the future of Europe.
Admittedly, this report has the merit of providing an insight into the immensity of the task that awaits us if we wish, not even to bring the candidate countries of Eastern Europe up to the level of development of the West, but simply to establish conditions for peaceful coexistence and a gradual rapprochement between the two areas that would not be too destabilising for either side.
Most of the report’s technical amendments deserve our wholehearted support, for example, those on food safety, the dismantling of first generation nuclear power stations, environmental protection, the fight against social dumping and the crucial code of conduct for Western businesses operating in the East, etc. The task is huge and also a matter of the utmost priority. If we had to give reasons for the existence of the European Union today, top of the list would be the huge task of closing the gulf that Communism created between the two halves of Europe.
Unfortunately, from the institutional point of view, the Brok report falls in completely with the standard Brussels ready-made way of thinking: it takes the view that enlargement consists of bringing Greater Europe into the institutions of Little Europe. The problem is that these institutions were not designed for that purpose, and their capacity is far too limited.
The statements that we find most unacceptable are to be found in the combination of several paragraphs of the resolution for which the European Parliament voted: firstly, paragraph 27 and those that follow, which imply that full participation in the single currency, even if not immediately, must be a condition for membership. Then there is paragraph 19, which “emphasises that acceptance of the provisions laid down regarding Economic and Monetary Union rules out any possibility of opting out and represents a commitment to a global, irreversible political project.”
It is unacceptable that participation in the euro should be a condition for accession, since several Members already benefit from exemptions. It is even more unacceptable to seek to turn this participation into a commitment to a global and irreversible political project. This paragraph alone justifies all the fears that our Danish friends have expressed in recent weeks during the referendum campaign, and which, quite rightly, were the reason for their “no” vote. If they had been able to read this report beforehand, the amount of people voting “no” would probably have been 80% rather than 53%.
Many other passages in the European Parliament’s resolution are equally unacceptable. Paragraph 45, for example, requires candidate countries to grant the freedom to purchase land to nationals of Member States. This provision raises a very serious issue, given the disparity between levels of purchasing power. Furthermore, this is the type of problem that was taken into account in 1992, in Protocol No 1 of the Maastricht Treaty, in order to grant an exemption allowing the Danes to maintain their restrictions on the purchase of second homes by non-residents. Here too, we do not see why exemptions that already exist in the Union could not be granted to candidate countries, in order to help them.
Paragraph 65 is another example of Brussels’s desire to dominate and unify, stating that the non-discrimination clause provided for in Article 13 of the EC Treaty is part of the ‘
’ and insisting that “legislation derived from this article be fully implemented in the CEECs”. Even if one approves of the principles of Article 13, it is quite clear that derived legislation that the European Union may draw from it sometimes goes too far, and that there are no grounds for refusing candidate countries the right to cultural diversity.
All in all, the Brok report gives a completely mistaken and even dangerous vision of enlargement, which consists of unilaterally imposing every last aspect of the legislation and the institutions of the European Union on the countries of Eastern Europe. What we should be doing instead is creating institutions for a Greater Europe, which, whilst stimulating development in Eastern Europe, will allow sovereignties and differences to be expressed. This excellent principle should, moreover, be applied within the European Union as well."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples