Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-04-09-Speech-3-033"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030409.3.3-033"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as rapporteur for Estonia I am pleased to be able to recommend that this House should today vote in favour of Estonia’s accession to the European Union. Anyone who, like myself, has had the privilege of visiting that country regularly in various capacities for ten years can see the progress Estonia has made since regaining independence. When you realise what additional disadvantages Estonia had to overcome compared with the non-Baltic former communist countries of Central Europe, it is almost a miracle that Estonia was in the first group to begin accession negotiations.
It was two years late in commencing reforms. Having been annexed as part of the USSR, it had to start almost from scratch with the building of government structures at national level. It needed to integrate Russians who had been settled there over decades and to deal with the enormous environmental damage from the Soviet Union’s military legacy. Despite many changes of government, the Estonian reform model has always been and still is a consistent one: in privatisation, in monetary policy, in matters affecting the tax system and in other respects. They said an unreserved ‘yes’ to the opportunities of technological change. The willingness with which people in the private sphere, in the economy and in administration made use of the opportunities of modern technology can be described as exemplary for other parts of Europe. What else can a small country with few natural resources do than make something from a combination of brain and technology? Estonia’s export structure shows that they are now successfully achieving this high-tech added value.
The fight against corruption is proving more successful than in other countries in the region. In its 2002 progress report, the Commission says that ‘corruption generally appears to remain a relatively limited problem in Estonia’. The fact that no ethnic tensions have arisen in Estonia and other Baltic states despite the large Russian-speaking minority and despite the tragic role the Soviet Union played in their history must be ascribed to the level-headed policy of the Estonian Governments and their willingness to follow proposals made by their European partners along the road to the EU.
One thing I would like to say a word about to the Estonian citizens direct is the referendum on 14 September. If you still have any doubts about whether you should vote in favour, then please consider whether a country the size of Estonia and in its geographical location can stand alone in today’s world. So far as the material advantage is concerned, all experience so far has shown that ultimately everyone involved in every enlargement has profited, which means that Estonia, too, will develop better if it is part of the EU.
I am also shadow rapporteur for Lithuania and there, too, I also share the view of my fellow rapporteur, who will be recommending accession. Lithuania’s reform process has not been quite so consistent or brisk as in Estonia, especially not in the first half of the 1990s, but I am impressed by the speed with which Lithuania has caught up, especially since 1996, and, as in all the countries, there was a lot to be done in every area covered by the
. One particular problem, both in discussions with the EU and with its own public opinion was the task of working out and paying for a plan for the closure of the nuclear power station at Ignalina and giving the people in and around the town of Visaginas a future. I believe we have found the right way forward together there.
In the matter of a satisfactory arrangement for transit to and from Kaliningrad, the former Königsberg, we must not leave Lithuania alone to meet our demand for Schengen compatibility. I am not satisfied with how it is actually going. The thing I warned against several times has happened. Travellers are, in practice, faced with complications and more bureaucracy, and there is scope for tension in relations with Russia. That cannot be in the interests of either party involved, and, with Belarus being Lithuania’s eastern neighbour, there is additional uncertainty as to whether all this will work.
Despite all the problems that remain to be solved, we are, today, writing a piece of European history. I share the view of many of my fellow Members that this vote on the accession of ten countries is the most important vote of this legislative period. I am glad that with my vote I can make a lasting contribution to turning the wheel of European history a lot further on. I say to those who believe they must vote against: history will pass you by and show how false both your pretended and your actual motives are. You still have the chance to decide for the common future of a greater Europe without losing face. To Estonia, Lithuania and the others I shout a warm welcome to the European Union:
and
!"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"kõike head, Eesti ja tere tulemast Euroopa Liidu"1
"viso kogeriausio Lietuva ir sveiki atvike į Europos Sąjungą"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples