Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-04-Speech-3-099"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001004.7.3-099"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Less would have amounted to more! I abstained in the vote on this never-ending resolution on enlargement because I believe that Parliament would be doing a disservice to the politically important and worthy cause of eastward and southward enlargement of the European Union to the south and east with this semi-digestible screed of paper.
This is my view, and the purpose of my abstention was to emphasise that this Parliament would have done better to produce less paper but more substance. I also wanted to send a signal that would be properly understood in the applicant countries, to convey the message that we are in favour of accession but that we, like they, must first be in a position to create the necessary conditions for their membership.
When I look at what has been done so far to that end at the Intergovernmental Conference, I feel that we have little cause for pride and that we should put our own house in order before imposing prior conditions on the applicant countries, especially when we ourselves have been unable to satisfy these conditions.
I even fear that this collection of country reports and comparative reports will prove counterproductive, particularly in the countries that have applied for membership of the European Union, and more especially in the applicant countries of Central and Eastern Europe.
The impact of this long-winded resolution of 127 paragraphs, indeed, is liable to be in inverse proportion to its length. We should have made do with the country reports, adding at most a short, yet succinct resolution.
Our purpose, after all, should be to send the right signal from here, saying that we want these countries’ accession and that it should not be delayed, but also making it clear that enlargement must be economically, socially and financially manageable, both for the applicant countries and for the Community.
A realistic approach to manageability is not procrastination – it is quite the opposite.
For many good reasons, not least among which is the desire to safeguard a lasting peace, we want the unification of the whole of Europe, which is the only way to exclude the wars that my parents and I have experienced. That, in a few words, should have been our message today.
We cannot and should not expect the applicant countries to go further than we ourselves have been able to go in implementing the established body of Community law and practice – the
.
Reading the section of the resolution entitled ‘Enlargement and Equal Opportunities’, which states that the adoption of the Community
in the area of equality is a
for accession and makes other demands of the applicant countries, I have the impression that all this could be interpreted by those countries as the ultimate bid to block their accession. They should know that in this domain, to which I attach great importance, the Community has not actually come very far. On paper, a great deal
been achieved in the area of equality of treatment and equal opportunities for men and women, but how do things stand in practice? It so happens that we have a report on equal opportunities for men and women on the agenda for this very sitting, a report which once more illustrates how stunted the body of Community practice still is in this particular area.
So it would be nothing less than arrogance on our part to expect more of the applicant countries in this domain than we ourselves have been able to achieve in the 25 years since the adoption of the first directives relating to equal opportunities."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples