Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-04-09-Speech-3-121"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030409.4.3-121"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
We have said ‘no’ to the treaties of accession presented to Parliament for assent. This is because we actually wish enlargement to succeed and because we are committed federalists.
Enlargement is in danger of becoming a dog’s dinner as a number of preliminary conditions have not been met. Some of these are detailed below.
Turning first to institutional conditions, clearly the Convention will not lead to a major overhaul of the institutions. It will therefore not enable them to become more democratic and comprehensible. It will not allow for secularism to be declared a fundamental principle of the Union either.
Moving on to social conditions, so far there is no provision for a social treaty to accompany the draft constitution for Europe. Such a treaty would contain guarantees to help deal with the danger of business relocation together with assurances regarding public services.
Further, the agreement cobbled together at the eleventh hour violated the rights of the European Parliament. It sets enlargement in an unrealistic financial framework that discriminates against the accession countries. It threatens the success of the whole enterprise, notably that of the CAP. Readjustment of the CAP to focus on rural development is also at risk.
The candidate countries are set to join an integrated system that is merely a market. This is not how the European socialists conceive of Europe."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples