Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-12-Speech-3-160"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020612.5.3-160"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the Member States really do seem to have forgotten that enlargement is a continuation of the historic project which began with the fall of the Berlin Wall. I share the Commissioner's view, and above all his concern, that it is apparently the Member States' failure to recognise their responsibility which is causing the project to founder. Have the Member States only just realised that these problems in agriculture would arise, and that a solution must be found, first and foremost, by the European Union? Do you really not realise that delays in the timetable are grist to the mill of nationalist forces and actually encourage their emergence in these countries? I therefore call on all the democratic movements here in this House, in the Member States and in the candidate countries to ensure that this major and historic project, which so many people in Europe have worked so hard to achieve, does not fall into the hands of election propagandists.
I have just had an opportunity to see for myself how difficult it was to fulfil the Copenhagen criteria item by item in Latvia. For historical reasons and due to the great efforts made by Latvia, it would be impossible to explain to the local population that Member States are not prepared to do their homework here. It is clear that the obvious deficiencies in European agricultural policy cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely without a reform. It is also clear that Europe needs a constitution. It is essential that this takes place in parallel to, and does not delay, accession. After all, it was the prospect of enlargement and accession to the European Union which gave the crucial impetus to the reform movements in Europe and encouraged them to embark on a course towards a democratic Europe.
Let me cite Latvia as an example. Although the majority of its political elite opposed this move, Latvia has amended one of its electoral laws and granted the Russian-speaking community an unlimited right to stand for election. This is accepted as a matter of course in our own countries. Yet in Latvia, this was a highly sensitive issue, just as agricultural policy is for us. So if Latvia can do it, why can not we? This comparison may not seem relevant to you, but it is relevant in terms of the candidate countries' expectations. What we expect from them are the qualities which we ourselves should be displaying, namely a willingness to move towards integration, and an enthusiasm for reform. Without constitutional reform and financial solidarity, Europe cannot progress. The tasks to be resolved must be resolved here. We cannot point the finger at the enlargement countries and tell them that they should be doing this and that if we cannot manage to do the same things ourselves. I would certainly recommend that Latvia's accession be planned for the end of 2002, for I am convinced that this country can resolve its remaining problems. The European Commission must also continue with the process of decentralisation and pursue policies which are close to citizens in order to shape this process successfully."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples