Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-12-Speech-3-205"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020612.5.3-205"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, sometimes, it is time to dust down the old classic. A spectre is haunting Europe, the spectre of fear, the fear of enlargement which is trapping an increasing number of politicians in its power. Fear that enlargement will be too fast after all, or that it will be too costly after all, or both. Politicians across the political divide are starting to become anxious. Old and new arguments are being tabled, often under the guise that we now finally want to listen to the voice of the people, thus reinforcing the impression that many politicians do not know exactly what they have been doing up to now and are now starting to tense up right before the final exam. They tense up because they are starting to realise that they have done too little to convince their electorate that enlargement is very much a positive step, both for the inhabitants of the Member States and those of the candidate countries.
In this chorus of sceptics, a number of voices are becoming ever louder. One objection, for example, is that agricultural reform should be complete before we can enlarge. Let there be no mistake about this: reform is desperately needed. The common agricultural policy must be reformed. The European Parliament should continue to demand this, without any concessions. However, without enlargement, the reform of agricultural policy will not take place. To prescribe this reform now as a condition for approval of enlargement is tantamount to creating not a win-win situation, but a lose-lose situation. Who would benefit from this, except for those opposed to reforms and to enlargement?
Another argument which is heard increasingly frequently is that the EU itself should undergo internal reform first. This too is desperately needed, but please let us not resort to blackmail. It is unacceptable for the candidate countries to be taken hostage because we have not completed all our tasks. Here too, delay of enlargement means delay of necessary reforms. After all, these have never come about without extreme pressure yet.
I would like to quote another argument that is increasingly common these days, namely that human rights are being violated in the candidate countries. That too is true, let there be no misunderstanding about this. In those countries, the rights of the Roma and those of homosexuals, for example, leave a great deal to be desired. It is extremely important for this to be denounced. My group has been doing this for years; this is something altogether different from brushing problems under the carpet. But here too, it is true, and I am convinced of this, that these problems that are very much there can best be solved if those countries become EU Members and if they are not kept in isolation.
We are not bureaucrats, we are politicians. This is not about ticking a list and automatically giving a fail if five minuses appear on that list. We are in favour of weighing up the situation. What has happened, what needs to happen and what is the most demanding part?
Ladies and gentlemen, Madam President, we should all ensure that the completion of enlargement in the next few months does not lead to one large European coitus interruptus, because that would be wholly unsatisfactory."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples