Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-14-Speech-3-133"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030514.7.3-133"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, it just so happens that there is, today, an article on the future of Europe in the international press. It paints a very dramatic picture, mapped out by a French institute, of the dangers threatening Europe. Populations are falling, economic growth is stagnating, and the institute takes the view that the situation will be long-term. The innovative strength of the European Union lags far behind that of the United States. Doom and gloom. The remedy that the French institute prescribes is to open our eyes, see the bigger picture and look further than the Commission does at this moment. That was what it boiled down to. Whether this is the remedy, I do not know. In any case we must always keep the United States at the back of our minds, since that country is an important neighbour of ours.
As far as the course of events in Europe and in our neighbour states on this continent are concerned, however, I am bound to say that I had a sense of
when I read the Commission’s statement. The Commission is familiar with the whole field of expansion, and with the attendant process. Reading the document one has the strong feeling that we are embarking on a new round of expansions. It is made very clear that this is not the case. The only prospect being offered to the surrounding countries is participation in the internal market, not participation in the Union and its decision-making process. But we find that matters relating to environmental policy, public order, security, fighting crime, quality of government administration, the rule of law, are all open to consideration for a joint approach – in short, virtually the whole spectrum of topics also discussed on the admission of the candidate countries. The development of neighbouring countries, the statement continues, in all these sectors can then be discussed annually in progress reports. It looks remarkably like the expansion process. In addition there is talk of benchmarks – there are a number of internationally recognised benchmarks, by which the neighbouring countries will be measured, and these are consequently mentioned in concrete terms.
I just wonder whether we are dealing here with a ‘Department of Public Works’ effect. The Department of Public Works is a very efficient agency in the Netherlands that is continually creating polders and dikes. Once they have completed the construction of a new polder, they suddenly find that a dike is much too low and they immediately have to set to work on it. This may be something of a tongue-in-cheek comment, but I could well imagine that that effect might play a part. Those involved in hands-on work see further ahead than the rest of us.
The theme of a
therefore, if I have understood correctly, in fact concerns the affiliation of neighbouring countries to the European Union but without their participation in its decision-making. This will in fact turn them into virtual satellites, also removing them, for instance, from existing cooperative agreements in which they are involved; Russia from the GOS, and perhaps also the North African countries from their own federation of Arab states. It also presupposes that our current Member States fully meet the benchmarks and criteria mentioned in the statement. Naturally I warmly welcome the latter news. That every new candidate must be carefully judged by the same standard, is a conviction we all share.
How are we to deal in that respect, however, with countries to which we definitely cannot or do not wish to offer the prospect of membership? Will they accept such assessment and such an annual investigation? It seems to me that a
might be a space for countries whose traditions make it impossible to opt for the European democratic model. I can imagine that there are such countries. It is actually difficult to deny admission to countries that
opt for the model. What moral basis is there for telling such countries, when they ask for a date, that they can not join? My feeling is that such issues will have to be discussed in great detail in the future."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"do"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples