Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-04-Speech-2-136"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010904.7.2-136"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President on the basis of the Christian idea of charity, I wholeheartedly support enlargement of the European Union. Much to my delight, the Communist system collapsed in Central and Eastern Europe in 1989. That happiness was generally shared in Western Europe at the time. It now requires a sequel, namely our aid to the candidate countries, to enable them to join the European Union and, in that way, actually return to Europe.
This line of thinking also shows realism, for the predominantly eastward enlargement of the Union benefits the Member States and candidate countries politically and economically speaking. Just to give you an example: after 1988, reciprocal trade experienced turbulent growth. The resolution following Mr Brok’s oral question is right, therefore, to underline the shared benefits of the enlargement process.
However, this view of enlargement is definitely not shared by everyone. This is borne out by recent opinion polls. These studies show a contrast between general public opinion in the candidate countries and that within the 15 EU Member States. In the candidate countries, enlargement is widely supported. In the Member States, however, only 43% of the citizens can muster any real enthusiasm. In fact, in a number of EU countries, those against outnumber those in favour by quite a margin. As if the burden and insecurities of this major enlargement were to rest on EU shoulders only.
Moreover, Mr Brok’s motion for a resolution does not take account of this imbalanced public opinion. It encourages both Member States and candidate countries to provide their populations with more and better information. I fear that that will not entirely cause the noted lack of European commitment to disappear. Whatever the case, the incentive in the resolution is mainly aimed at the Member States. However, those in favour are not alone by any means. The EU Member States are most definitely populated by scores of people who feel for Central and Eastern Europeans. The extent of their initiatives, private or church-based, since time immemorial, and often long before the fall of the Berlin Wall, speak for themselves. Members of the Council and the Commission: make sure you definitely involve these allies in your information campaigns on enlargement.
I would like to turn to another point of the motion for a resolution which caught my attention. Paragraph 49 states that there is no need for candidate countries to meet stricter conditions than the Member States themselves. That seems to me to be self-evident. What is more, the European Union has explicitly restricted its admission requirements to compliance with the Copenhagen criteria. As long as the candidate countries cannot co-determine far-reaching cooperation in various areas of policy – such as the CFSP and the asylum, immigration and monetary policies – the European Union may not impose new criteria in these areas.
Mr President, there is a saying in Dutch which means that the last mile is the longest one. This will once again be apparent when we complete the accession negotiations with candidate countries which have made most progress. After all, there are a number of difficult issues left to deal with. I hope that the European Union will know how to give a tangible sign of its willingness to enlarge. Moreover, to quote the well-known biblical saying, it is better to give than to receive."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples