Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-04-09-Speech-3-111"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030409.4.3-111"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Members of SOS Democracy (and the Democracy-Forum in the Convention) have voted differently on enlargement but share the following critical views.
The applicant countries should take full part in the Convention with full membership and have their fair share of the posts in the Praesidium and the Secretariat. Also, the treaty resulting from the Convention should be adopted by an IGC with the eastern countries as full members.
All EU treaties and rules should have been translated into the applicant country languages and been made available for the citizens through libraries and the Internet in good time before the referendums. The Yes-side and the No-side should have equal public funding. The governments and the EU institutions should not be allowed to interfere with biased information before the referendums.
These critical remarks have made some of us vote against enlargement or abstain while others have voted 'yes' to allow the voters in the applicant countries to take a free decision, even if the conditions are not fair.
The applicant countries should have been offered more flexible conditions, including different types of association agreements with mutual influence and mutual obligations instead of the colonial style EEA-agreement.
Membership should have been offered with variable geometry, lasting derogations, long-term derogations and derogations dependent on the future economic development towards cohesion, fully taking into account the different levels of economic development.
The applicant countries should be allowed to decide on their own regarding the buying and selling of agricultural land and second houses, at least until their incomes are comparable to ours.
Waiting for agricultural reform and a fair deal, the applicant countries should be able to have the amounts provided for in the agricultural budgets as lump sums, instead of being bound to use the money in the silly, wasteful and inefficient way we have done.
Instead of paying full contributions from the first day of membership, they should at least have been offered the five years' rebate that was offered to the UK, Denmark and Ireland, or free membership until they reach a certain income.
Many civil servants from the applicant countries will now be offered lucrative jobs in the EU institutions with salaries far above the salaries offered to their own prime ministers. The applicant countries shall have a possibility to tax their nationals, employed by the EU and in the EU countries to avoid unfair inequalities, where their citizens are asked to pay contributions from poor budgets to fellow citizens, e.g. paid 20 times the normal salary at home.
The applicant countries should be offered more flexibility in the application of EU rules. They should adopt the rules gradually by following our rules, such as when they export their products to our markets, but not apply all the rules to their home market, e.g. we should accept the sale of sausages in local markets, when they comply with local laws.
The fulfilment of common environmental standards should be financed by Community funds so that environmental protection is not spurned in the applicant countries or postponed for better times. The applicant countries should also be allowed to keep their standards, especially when they are higher than ours."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Andersen, Berthu, Bonde, Gahrton, Goodwill, Lucas, Ribeiro e Castro and Sandbæk (EDD ),"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples