Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-04-Speech-3-042"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021204.3.3-042"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the Copenhagen Summit will be a historic event. Ten countries will be able to join the EU from 2004, two countries from 2007, and Turkey will probably be given a date for its next meeting. Europe is growing together, which is a good thing. However, the EU membership that is now being negotiated is not the kind the applicant countries will actually receive. They can say ‘yes’ to the EU, but as early as next Christmas, when the Rome Summit has buried the Treaty of Rome and the constitution of Rome is born, they will be given the status of constituent state of a new federal state. The completion of the new constitution is planned for before the new countries join, with their right of veto in matters of treaty amendments. This is unfair, as Mr Haarder also said.
When the applicant countries have signed their membership agreements, and when they have been approved here in Parliament – by March or April – they should be offered equal status with the present Member States and enjoy the same legal representation in all bodies. If a referendum says ‘no’ to membership, the country’s representation can cease in the same way as when Norway voted ‘no’ to EC membership and had to find an ambassador job for its Commissioner. If the referendums confirm membership, this membership becomes a reality, and the countries should have the same right of veto in matters of treaty amendments as the present Member States. They must not join as second-class members, but instead have equal rights from day one.
I also think that we could be much more accommodating with regard to the funding of their membership of the EU. When Denmark, a rich country, joined in 1973, we actually only paid 20% of our contribution in the first year, 40% the next, 60% the third and 80% the fourth, until, after five years, we reached our full contribution. Why can we not adopt a similar introductory arrangement with reduced contributions, or grant exemption from contributions, while these countries are so far behind us in terms of wealth? We should bear in mind that EC and EU membership is, of course, not just something one receives. For some it is actually very expensive insurance, as ordinary people have to pay contributions via their daily purchases of everyday goods and via national taxation. Everyone has to pay, but only very few receive subsidies from the EU budget. We should perhaps now look into redistribution, or Mr Rasmussen runs the risk of getting an unpleasant surprise when people realise how much they will have to pay in contributions to the EU.
Just a few words about the next point on the agenda. There should be a move towards wages being paid through the front door, and being taxed in the Member States; and the system of travel expenses should be changed to a card system for Members, according to which Parliament pays all the expenses incurred, whatever their magnitude."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples