Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-04-Speech-2-067"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010904.3.2-067"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Madam President-in-Office, Commissioner, on behalf of my group I should like to say that we – at least the vast majority – consider the accession of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe to the European Union to be of strategic importance and we strongly support this accession process. Madam President-in-Office, if you have compared this accession process with others, I think it must be made even clearer that this accession process is qualitatively quite different, not only because of the number of countries, the languages, the territory, the population, but also historically, because it is a far-reaching cultural opening towards Central and Eastern Europe such as has hardly been discussed before, because it is an economic and social challenge on an entirely new scale, and, of course, also because of the far-reaching foreign and security policy implications.
The second difference concerns Mr Brok’s report. When it says that the expansion of the EU and NATO are sensible complements to each other, I would think that eastern enlargement of the EU also offers prospects for a productive and cooperative shaping of the relationship between Europe and Russia. But NATO expansion, especially under the conditions of current US and NATO policy, is in my view fraught with serious and in part incalculable risks.
Finally, Commissioner, Madam President-in-Office, it remains my great wish that the citizens might be able to experience EU enlargement as something that concerns them not primarily through glossy brochures, but that they might help to shape it as a democratic, social and ecological reality.
In the light of that, my agreement to what many of the previous speakers have said must be qualified. I think the policies pursued by the governments and also by the Commission are seriously flawed, even though I do recognise the commitment you have shown, Commissioner Verheugen, the progress made in negotiations and the great support given by the EU to the accession process. I would like to highlight five questions:
Firstly, in my opinion the involvement of the citizens has been minimal.
Secondly, hardly any attempt is being made to use the opportunity presented by eastward enlargement to overcome the Nice crisis and for the democratic and social shaping of European integration.
Thirdly, equality for the accession countries has not in my opinion been adequately achieved. That applies to the question, which has already been raised, of the excessively long transitional periods for the free movement of workers just as much as to the lack of clarity that is now emerging over transfers to agriculture.
Fourthly, I have to say clearly that the Commission’s recent decision on funding for border regions is irresponsible. A year ago, Mr Verheugen, you made quite different promises in the regions concerned. You are being measured against them there and I am measuring you against them. As you well know and others here have already mentioned, these are the very regions, above all others, where expansion will be experienced directly. Whosoever wants it to be an economic, social and political success and not a breeding ground for nationalist sentiment must change this position.
Fifthly, I find it totally unsatisfactory that the number of Czech and Hungarian members of this Parliament was decided undemocratically in Nice and that that has still not been changed.
Mr Hänsch, I was also surprised that the amendment I tabled in the matter to the report on the Czech Republic was supported by the European People’s Party and others in the Committee on Foreign Affairs but was not supported by the majority of the Social Democrats. Whether that was out of deference to the national governments that decided it, I do not know. At any rate we should agree that Parliament will in this matter be calling uncompromisingly for a change.
I would like to thank everyone, including Mr Brok, for their reports. I believe that here, too, a critical, thoughtful attitude was formulated towards many aspects of the eastward enlargement strategy. But I would also like to draw attention to two differences, which in part also affect other reports. The first is the stereotypical concentration on economic and social deregulation and privatisation at the expense of social division and destruction which, given the scale of it, are unacceptable."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples