Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-07-05-Speech-2-184"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050705.26.2-184"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The debate on the Hatzidakis report is taking place at a time when the EU is mired in a profound crisis, which was triggered by irresponsible attempts to force the European Constitution on the Member States. The Constitution is a dead duck, and we have it to thank for the fact that age-old animosities have flared between Member States, and for the fact that they are not even able to agree on the 2007-2013 budget. Despite this heated atmosphere, however, we regret to say that the Hatzidakis report divides the EU once again into two blocs, namely the old Member States and the new Member States. For understandable reasons, the old Member States are finding very creative ways to limit the funding that was intended to accelerate development in the new Member States. The report tells us that those living in the 15 old Member States are best off, and that if they also live on islands, or even better in outermost regions – and particularly if they are inhabitants of regions affected by the statistical effect – then they have nothing to worry about.
Due to short-sighted considerations, frequently motivated by pre-election nerves, the report fails to mention that by far the greatest problem facing the unified Europe is how to overcome the effects of half a century of non-market developments in the post-communist Member States. In order to make it even more difficult for the inexperienced new Member States to obtain funding, the report rules out a more flexible application of the n+2 rule for the Structural Funds, and provides no solution to the problem of VAT and EU cofinanced projects.
The report is also a slap in the face for any right-thinking entrepreneur who wishes to move production to another Member State where he can find qualified, cheap and industrious workers. On the one hand, we do not allow the infamous Polish plumber to work on the other side of the former Iron Curtain, because he might prove that it is possible to work a 40-hour week. On the other hand, however, we impose a senseless obligation on entrepreneurs to remain in regions of the EU where the workforce is excessively expensive, and often accustomed to working a 35-hour week for full wages. We are preventing entrepreneurs from going in search of Polish plumbers, merely because they once profited from the Structural Funds. They were unaware at the time that one day we would hold them hostage for having done so; according to one proposal, they would not be set free for 10 years, which is quite absurd. Perhaps they should have thought twice before accepting the payout. This is the perfect antithesis of the Lisbon goals, but maybe it fits in with the Gothenburg strategy.
The Hatzidakis report does however highlight another of the EU’s problems, albeit unintentionally. It shows contemptuous disregard for public will by repeatedly referring to the Constitution for Europe, which was categorically rejected and buried by the people of France and the Netherlands, and thus demonstrates the same spirit of elitism that plunged the EU into this far-reaching crisis. For this reason alone, it is hard to vote in favour of this report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples