Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-03-13-Speech-3-020"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-03-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Enlargement2
dcterms:Language	"da"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20020313.2.3-020"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-03-13-Speech-3-0212
lpv:speaker	lp:Pernille Frahm2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Delegation to the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-06--2004-04-30)3 unknown; Socialistisk Folkeparti (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; EUL/NGL (1999-10-13--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, as a Dane, I naturally hope that this can be done so that the Copenhagen criteria come full circle and we can append the final signatures in Copenhagen by the autumn. As a democrat and internationalist, I rather doubt, however, whether we shall make as much progress as that. I think there are still many obstacles. Some of these have been mentioned, but I think there are others that are also worth mentioning. We heard about developments from the fall of the Berlin Wall until the present time. Eastern and Southern European countries, emerging from planned economies and militarisation, were mentioned. All right, but what is to become of these countries if there are no planned economies or militarisation. The other day, we had a debate in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Security and Defence Policy about transatlantic links, and all the participants thought that European countries should prepare to get the defence budgets up to between 3 and 5% of GDP, simply in order to comply with general expectations of the EU’s military capacity. What does that mean for the candidate countries and their economies? I fear that, when it dawns upon them what conditions we are offering them, the people of Eastern and Central Europe will vote ‘no’ in the final referendums, and that would in my view be a catastrophe. I am dissatisfied, then, with the economic package prepared in connection with enlargement. I am dissatisfied with the statement that it must not cost anything. I am dissatisfied with the fact that the candidate countries must go through a transitional phase of ten years before they feel they are participating fully in the economic area, when it is also ourselves who are laying down transitional conditions and not allowing the principle of freedom of movement for the labour force to apply to the candidate countries on the same footing as it applies to other countries. When considerations of this kind become apparent to those people who, in due course, must vote on whether or not the candidate countries are to become members of the EU, then I fear we shall have problems. I would therefore call for an extra effort to be made in the last phase to alter all this about its not having to cost anything. I agree completely with Mrs Schroedter from the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance when she said that we are probably talking about the biggest peace project of our lifetime. Must it really rest upon its not having to cost anything? Are those of us in this cooperative venture really so small-minded that we believe that the greatest peace project of our lifetime must not cost anything? I should very much like to be involved in campaigning for the rich Member States to be required to pay for the project, and that also applies to my own country. Denmark must naturally be willing to pay. Saying that it must not cost anything is tantamount to not wishing wholeheartedly to get this mammoth project under way."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph