Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-23-Speech-3-016"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021023.1.3-016"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the candidate countries have now devoted many years’ hard work to adapting themselves to the European Union. They have the right to expect that the EU does its share of the work and that no obstacle now arises to prevent the ten countries identified by the Commission being admitted into the European Union as planned. It would be an irony of fate if there were discord in the EU which ended up delaying enlargement.
Our group does not share the opinion that the Treaty of Nice was an absolute condition for enlargement. Enlargement could have gone ahead all the same, based on the old treaty. The Treaty of Nice is, above all, about strengthening supranationality and increasing the power of the large countries within the EU system. In addition, there is a problem with the Treaty of Nice as regards the distribution of power to the new countries. The Czech Republic and Hungary are in actual fact discriminated against in terms of the number of seats in the European Parliament allocated to them. It is our opinion that this should be adjusted in the Treaty of Accession.
It has to be said that the negotiations have gone well from the EU’s point of view. The candidate countries have worked hard to take over the
. The important thing now is that they will not only take it over in theory but also in practice, and then not only as regards the internal market but also as regards the environment and social rights for workers. The question is whether the EU should not also adapt itself to having ten new members. I believe that more should have been done. It is our own inability to reform agricultural policy which has given rise to a situation in which the new Member States are actually going to be treated significantly worse than the previous Member States for quite some time. This is unacceptable. Any discrimination should be kept to a minimum and should be as short-lived as humanly possible.
In other areas, too, we must be able to revise our own policies so that they are suitable for enlargement. The Schengen Agreement is one such area: its strict border controls are in danger of becoming a serious obstacle to cooperation for new Member States and for countries which are not in the next wave of enlargement of the European Union.
On the subject of the Kaliningrad area, we wish to see a solution whereby Russian citizens are able to travel between different parts of their country without needing a visa.
On the subject of the labour market, it is our opinion that everyone should be treated equally. It is crucial that workers’ rights are respected in all countries from day one, so that a situation does not arise in which we have social dumping or in which workers from the candidate countries are discriminated against on the labour market. Therefore, we regret that the Commission has effectively called this into question by means of a legal case in Finland which questions the contention that Finnish agreements apply in Finland from day one.
The important thing now is to avoid enlargement giving rise to an ‘A team’ and a ‘B team’ in the European Union. This would also require the ability on our part to make changes to the Union. Naturally, the candidate countries also have a choice. They can vote ‘yes’, or they can vote ‘no’. If they choose to vote ‘no’, the alternative is close cooperation with the European Union."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples