Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-04-09-Speech-3-142"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030409.4.3-142"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Our opposition to the Brok report is consistent with our opposition to how the whole enlargement process has been conducted. We have always been strong advocates of the reunification of Europe. We have always tried to reverse the unnatural division imposed at Yalta. We have done all in our power to enable Europe to regain the use of both its lungs.
Unfortunately, the European Union began by missing an historic opportunity. The countries of Eastern and Central Europe should have been offered the opportunity of acceding to the intergovernmental part of the treaties immediately after their liberation. Following this formal event, each state should have been allowed to opt for accession to one or other of the common policies. Appropriate timetables should have been devised to take account of local conditions. It could have been possible to eliminate corruption and avoid social upheavals.
None of this happened. Instead, after endless negotiations conducted by the Commission in its usual bureaucratic style, the same straitjacket and timetable were imposed on all. Borders and protection are to be done away with in one fell swoop, and a multiplicity of safeguard clauses appended to the treaties. The European Union will therefore have achieved something quite special. It will have contrived to replace delight in the renewal of old acquaintances with generalised concern. It would be irresponsible not to acknowledge that this delayed and uniform enlargement is now perceived as a threat rather than an opportunity by many in both East and West."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples