Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-03-Speech-3-022"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020703.2.3-022"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I come from another small country and as a result, will strike a slightly different note, but you will understand that for us, the Danish Presidency will at any rate have a smooth start as far as a number of aspects are concerned. You are to us a model of democracy, transparency and of international solidarity – so far, at least – and I hope that this will continue to be the case.
To small countries, Europe is always a bit bigger than it is to larger countries, because the latter first need to look after their own country, which is so big, before they can consider the interests of others. This is why there is ever greater hope in this Parliament that small countries can help Europe progress more effectively than the large ones, and Denmark’s decisiveness, which comes across in your speech, is no exception.
As far as your priority for enlargement is concerned, you rightly refer to the major Copenhagen rights which served as criteria for the candidate countries. In terms of human rights, in terms of democracy, in terms of minorities, these Copenhagen criteria have provided guidance, and not only hope, but really acted as a big stick, thus ensuring that reforms will be able to take place in those countries not merely on an economic basis but in accordance with our common system of values.
However, many of those candidate countries which we hope, as you do, can join as soon as they are ready, are actually small countries. Some of them have no more inhabitants than do some historical regions, including Scotland, Wales, the Basque Country, Flanders, Wallonia, Catalonia, and they are actually being somewhat overlooked. You are only considering Member States, but we ask ourselves how you see the future of the constitutional regions? Should they all become Member States before they are taken seriously? Or will you also take the regions into consideration, not only the constitutional ones but also those in the accession countries which you will need if you are serious about solving the problem of the Structural Funds?
Is it, in this light, such a good idea to make such a distinction between reforms and great visions? As I understand it, the Commission President, Mr Prodi, has, in fact, asked you a question without actually articulating it: could you, when you consider enlargement, wait to think about the future of our institutions without having these institutions immediately in the back of your mind and having an opinion of the way in which they should be reformed?
A second critical question has already been raised, both by Mr Crespo and by Mrs Frahm. It is related to immigration, the fight against illegal immigration, the fight against crime, and asylum seekers.
It is, of course, not your fault alone that the Council, that the Councils, have saddled us with a policy that is a non-policy. This is not a balanced policy; the Commission had proposals that were far more balanced.
I also wanted to ask you how you intend to bring Cyprus on board if you do not give the Turkish minority any security guarantees, how you intend to solve the Kaliningrad issue, and so on. In other words, we are very interested in the questions which others will be asking, but mainly in the answers which you will be giving today, and especially your actions in the future. In any event, I wish you, on behalf of our group, every success."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples