Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-13-Speech-4-143"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020613.4.4-143"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Notwithstanding the self-congratulation of the European Union’s governing bodies, a rather sombre picture emerges from the situation of the Central and Eastern European candidate countries. A goal which no effort is made to disguise is served by the observation, realistic as it unfortunately is, to the effect that there is “a prosperity gap with a ratio of as much as ten to one” between regions situated at the external borders of the EU and adjacent regions in the candidate countries.
The Commission has already agreed broadly to subsidise these regions and, in particular, the undertakings that operate there, explaining that, following enlargement, the regions at the present external borders of the EU will certainly attract less than prosperous labour from newly admitted countries. As for the rapporteur, she adds that, in terms of the needs of the wealthy regions and their undertakings – and most certainly not in terms of the needs of the impoverished populations of Central and Eastern Europe – the subsidy “is no more than a drop in the ocean”. For that reason, she proposes increasing the subsidies that are to be paid to the wealthy regions and their undertakings, while approving what are termed transitional measures which, even after enlargement, will hinder the free movement within the EU of workers from the newly admitted countries. Indeed, these new countries are only being integrated into the EU accompanied by restrictions which make second-class citizens of their inhabitants. We have therefore, quite obviously, voted against this report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples