Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-12-Speech-3-169"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020612.5.3-169"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the forthcoming enlargement which is the subject of our debate today naturally poses a unique challenge to the European Union. The number of Member States will virtually double. The EU's population will increase by almost 50%. What will not increase substantially, however, is the Gross Domestic Product of this new enlarged EU. It will only rise by about 10%. The prosperity gap between the current EU, with its fifteen Member States, and the accession states is enormous.
This enlargement will entail major burdens for us all. Nonetheless, we all agree that these burdens are immaterial in light of the historic opportunity afforded to us to unite Europe in peace and democracy and in political and economic stability. Yet already, many of our regions bordering candidate countries are experiencing a foretaste of enlargement. It is precisely these border regions which will face tremendous problems in the wake of enlargement. They will bear the brunt of enlargement for us all.
These border regions need our solidarity. We must help them to cope with this difficult situation. Certainly, not all the border regions are the same. Some of them are prospering more than others. Nonetheless, many of them have been in decline for some time. These regions have been on the absolute periphery for decades; indeed, from our perspective, they are almost at the edge of the world. It is not a particularly attractive situation, and this is reflected in the fact that many of them are still areas covered by Objective 1. They still have a major deficit compared with the EU average.
What are the key features of the situation in these difficult border regions? High unemployment, a lack of prospects and even resignation, the drifting away of young people, inner city decline, decaying villages in rural regions, and a resulting loss of infrastructure – for no one contemplates expanding the road network if it seems that no one uses it any more. These regions' loss of infrastructure, their loss of quality of life and their declining attractiveness and quality as a location for industry create a vicious circle. Then there is the competition from the accession regions on the other side of the border, which are quite rightly pushing westwards. It is a fact that the borders have been semi-permeable for a long time.
This is not necessarily a fair competition, for we all know that the prosperity gap is wide between these neighbouring regions on either side of the border. It results in major differences in the cost of living and in labour and social costs, as well as highly disparate environmental standards, which are likely to continue for some time. This situation substantially distorts competition. It is particularly difficult for small and medium enterprises in the trades and service sectors, which is why, in my report, I have focussed especially on support for SMEs in the border regions. Indeed, I would have liked to set up a separate budget line for this area in order to guarantee that the support genuinely reaches its target. However, I was forced to recognise that this was unlikely to be supported by a majority in this House, for of course it is quite correct that setting up a new funding instrument takes a great deal of time, and time is running out for these SMEs. They need assistance urgently.
I therefore abandoned my idea and agreed that the well-established, tried and tested funding instruments such as Interreg should be used instead. In the end, I also had the impression that the Commission recognises the urgent need for strong support to SMEs in these problematical border regions. We ourselves should also recognise the need for short-term transitional measures relating to the freedom to provide services and the free movement of workers. What is needed, please, is a gradual opening and a cautious approach.
Naturally, therefore, I do not support the amendments before us which dispute that these measures are necessary. Incidentally, it is also important to stress that we are focussing on our border regions very late in the day, and that the financial resources available are completely inadequate. This is described in my report as well. It would be unfair to use the lion's share of these meagre resources to expand the Trans-European Networks. These TENs are in Europe's general interest. They are only of limited benefit to the border regions. In the border regions, what is required are regional transport links and, in particular, cross-border transport services. There is virtually nothing available at present. The measures which we are now initiating through this Community action for border regions are really only a start, a first step.
Let us recognise that dismantling the existing deficits is likely to take several generations, and so further measures must follow. Of course, the border regions are now moving to the heart of Europe, and this naturally offers them great opportunities for the future. There is a chance for them to become a model of best practice for European regional cooperation, that is true, but this is likely to take many years. Until then, we must help them. Let us send out a signal and endorse this report by a broad majority in this House. Let us send out a signal to the citizens living in these difficult regions that we are not sacrificing them to the enlargement process, and that we are not abandoning them. Instead, we are taking them by the hand to progress together towards a positive future."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples