Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-07-Speech-4-074"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021107.4.4-074"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
I am in favour of enlargement but against this resolution because I regret the absence of a critical approach to various areas.
First of all, many of the candidate countries do not meet the Copenhagen criteria. Problems involving corruption, detention without trial, discrimination and administrative capacity are still too widespread.
Secondly, the accession of new countries has been announced to coincide with a 'big bang' in 2004. It is not the criteria, but the date, that has become decisive. It has therefore become politically impossible to delay the accession of a country until such time as it fulfils the criteria, the underlying message being that the criteria are actually unimportant.
Thirdly, it is acceptable to admit countries even if they do not yet meet the Copenhagen criteria, but proper testing mechanisms (accompanied by penalties) should ensure that these criteria, and the
are adopted as soon as possible. Such mechanisms (which should also apply in the current Member States) are put in place for the economic criteria, but not for the rule of law, democracy and human rights. The Dutch D'66 party sees these last shortcomings as even more serious than the economic ones.
Finally, we are still waiting for the reforms to the disastrous agricultural policy. Recent agreements between Germany and France do by no means serve this purpose. Introducing the old, failing agricultural policy in the new Member States first only makes it less likely that there will be genuine reform in 2007."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples