Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-12-Speech-3-152"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020612.5.3-152"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, EU enlargement is entering its crucial phase. The reports before us and the speeches by Members do not draw a veil over the unresolved issues, but do endorse the candidate countries' accession. Our group also supports this position. The current state of play in the negotiations and in the adoption of the acquis communautaire implies that there are no alternatives. Yet if we look at the quality of integration and the problems arising in the EU itself, it is possible to arrive at a different view.
My group, for example, does not believe it is right that, as part of the accession process, candidate countries are urged to join the NATO military alliance. This should not be part of the process, which involves accession to the EU and nothing else.
The EU sets conditions for the accession candidates which are not fulfilled by many of its own Member States. There is a tremendous backlog of reform in the EU. The willingness to show solidarity in the distribution of resources is far from overwhelming, and citizens' support for accession has recently been on the wane. Ascribing these problems to ignorance and a lack of transparency is, in our opinion, too simplistic. The citizens' debate on Europe which was called for after Nice has yet to take place in any meaningful way, while the burdens associated with the pre-accession adaptation process are becoming increasingly onerous.
The reports quite rightly call upon the candidate countries to adopt more rigorous anti-corruption measures. What is never mentioned, however, are the causes and sources of corruption, which is due, among other things, to capitalist privatisation and the growing social inequalities between a handful of increasingly wealthy people and the vast majority who face poverty and unemployment. The lack of impact of the Commission's strategic positions in the accession process is particularly apparent in agriculture. Anyone who warned early on that some of the elements contained in Agenda 2000 were quite unrealistic was criticised as a troublemaker, but the much-vaunted open 5% have negative and disproportionate repercussions on farmers.
Yet anyone who assumes that, with the exception of agricultural policy, the process of enlarging the EU by up to ten states has been resolved is naïve, in my view. Social inequality is present to a far greater extent. There is very limited willingness to show solidarity, and in many areas, the Commission's work is much too superficial and bureaucratic to do justice to the new demands of integration. A considerable number of key issues are unresolved, and what is required is a change of direction. I hope that this will be achieved in good time."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples