Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-04-13-Speech-3-387"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20050413.24.3-387"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in the case of the economically backward countries such as Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland that joined the Union later, the Union adopted a consistent policy encouraging the development of entrepreneurship and competitiveness. Part of this policy involved facilitating access to the Union market, which led to an increase in the balance of trade of the countries in question. This was one of the key factors in the rapid increase in jobs, tax revenue for the countries, investment and, as a result, swift economic development. Easier access to the Community’s markets allowed the backward countries to significantly reduce the gap between themselves and the more developed countries. I put it to you, ladies and gentlemen: did the former Communist countries aspiring to the European Union enjoy the same opportunity? The answer is that they did not. Instead of demonstrating a spirit of solidarity and providing aid, the Union exploited its own strength and capital advantage. It also took advantage of the submissiveness and corruption of leaders and delayed accession to extract further concessions. The clearest example of the above policy was the negative balance of trade between Poland and the European Union that was in excess of EUR 10 billion per annum. The new jobs and profits were created in the Union, not in Poland, but it was Poland that had to suffer increased unemployment and poverty. What did opening up their own market to Union companies mean to Polish companies? What did accession to the Union mean to them? Firstly, it meant unfair competition from companies enjoying technological and capital advantages. Secondly, it meant Polish businesses, banks and financial institutions being bought out for a pittance by Union concerns. Often the foreign concerns did not pay taxes or invest in Poland. Even worse, they transferred their benefits out of the country. Thirdly, it meant Poles had to make great sacrifices to modernise their companies and bear the considerable costs involved in order to comply with the Union’s requirements, standards and regulations. Fourthly, it meant agreeing to expensive and cumbersome bureaucratic and administrative procedures and also consenting to tax systems that made Polish firms less competitive and increased labour costs. VAT is one example of this. Fifthly, it meant consenting to quotas, limits and restrictions on production imposed by the Union either in relatively competitive and modern sectors such as the Polish shipbuilding industry, or in sectors producing high quality products, such as food. Almost a year has gone by since Poland became a Member of the Union, and it has turned out that despite all the restrictions and difficulties placed in their way, Polish companies have managed to be competitive, to export and to work better. This is also true of individuals. The reaction of governments and local administrations of Member States has been to resort to other measures in order to restrict access to Union markets by Polish businesses. Examples of such measures are the rules concerning the provision of services, which is the sector of the market responsible for 70% of gross GNP whilst creating virtually 100% of new jobs. The restrictions imposed on Polish companies and on the workers employed by them in the building industry are another example. To make things worse, these restrictive provisions are implemented by over zealous local officials. One could write a book about the persecution endured by Polish firms. Complaints lodged with the local authorities are not followed up. It comes as no surprise to learn that those same over zealous officials never take an interest in cases where Polish workers are underpaid or employed illegally, or when they fill unattractive jobs. The question that arises is what is the European Union and what does it aspire to? Were all those slogans about solidarity, doing away with differences, accelerated development and the common market so much hot air? Poland and the other former Communist states cannot give in any more to the European Union. They have given all they could. That is why Polish entrepreneurs are going to stand up for their country and we, the Polish Members of this House, will stand shoulder to shoulder with them. We are calling for swift and firm decisions to eliminate instances of discrimination and their causes. Our demands are not unreasonable. All we want is a level playing field and fair play for all. We shall fight until we win our case, even if that means the collapse of the European Union!"@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph