Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-23-Speech-3-017"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021023.1.3-017"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, an historic process, the opportunity for peace and stability on our continent – words do not come more impressive than these. I wish a bit of this historical spirit and sense of opportunity would make itself felt at the Brussels Summit, to prevent it from degenerating into the horse-traders' fair that we fear it will become. There must be a willingness there to solve problems rather than keep putting them off. The candidate countries' impressive performance will leave the Council with no option but to confirm that ten candidates are ready for membership.
The Member States' lack of solidarity, however, and unwillingness to reform is making living together in an enlarged EU increasingly problematic. It is thus that we discuss – as if it were the most self-evident thing in the world – how the candidate countries will in future finance the British rebate, even though they are barred from being given one themselves. In terms of the history of the EU, that is a one-off; previously, all net contributors got a rebate in their first year. The fifteen EU members benevolently welcomed the proposal by the Commission and the Presidency that they should get one extra year's payment from the Structural Fund. Why is this so? It is because the lack of absorption capacity means that the money ends up back in the Fifteen's treasuries. That is not the solidarity that the EU needs. We in the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance unambiguously reject such a continuation of bank-driven enlargement.
Let me say something about agricultural policy. The disinclination to make reforms in this area stinks to high heaven, and the citizens of the European Union will no longer stand for it. It is not only because of enlargement that reform is needed; it is in itself overdue, and it is absurd to put it off any longer. Unconditional direct aid payments as extensive as these have simply outlived their usefulness and an enlarged EU will mean that they will no longer be workable. We have to make a start on agricultural reform now and work together to develop a fair structure for the twenty-five members that the EU will have in 2007. The maintenance of privileges must not be allowed to become a new condition for enlargement.
I would like to say something about the Irish yes-vote. The Irish said yes to the Treaty of Nice, thereby removing the greatest obstacle to enlargement, but the reform of the European Union's institutions is still pending. The Treaty of Nice has not really moved the EU any further on. It is first necessary to create democracy and improve decision-making, and that is in the Convention's hands. I therefore want to argue that the Convention's draft treaty absolutely must be capable of being adopted in 2003. Functionality is not a prior condition for the enlarged EU, but it will be needed. President Prodi referred to a lack of public approval. And why is that so? The EU quite simply lacks transparency and democracy, and that must change!"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples