Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-10-25-Speech-2-143"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051025.20.2-143"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, for more than 30 years, first the European Communities and then the European Union have been involved in enlarging the number of Member States and have swallowed up other cooperatives. Since the great enlargement of 2004, when all of a sudden more new Member States joined than in the 70s, 80s and 90s combined, something has changed. Previous to that, each enlargement was a success, but many people nowadays regard enlargement as a threat.
It is unlikely that the example of Spain and Ireland, which quickly made up the shortfall with the help of generous financial contributions from the EU, will be followed. Many newcomers become dependent on the exports of cheap agricultural products, cheap mining products and, above all, cheap labour, while they have to import expensive new technology. The old Member States expect they will need to make increasing payments to the newcomers and, above all, they expect increasing levels of unemployment, possibly by low-wage competition. Despite this, the new Member States are still lagging behind.
With regard to Romania and Bulgaria, a decision was taken in April to the effect that they are allowed to join as the rearguard of the 10 newcomers of 2004. I now hear comments, even in this House, about tracing a final external border for Europe, about restricting the solidarity contribution from the rich to the poor Member States, about the use of national referendums as a means whereby current Member States can reject newcomers and even about suspending any enlargement until such time as the people in France and the Netherlands get round to rubberstamping the Constitution that they emphatically rejected.
Although my group does not condone the economic and military choices in that Constitution, or the democratic deficit that the text reinforces, our criticism is not levelled at the new Member States, with a lower standard of living, that seek to join the EU. Indeed, the contrary is the case; their admission could help the European Union focus more on common, large-scale and cross-border issues and less on unnecessary interference in matters that could be better evaluated and ordered on a smaller scale. Croatia and Macedonia are, in principle, welcome, as is Turkey, provided that it becomes more democratic and respects human rights.
My group is opposed to making unworkable demands on newcomers. Financial and economic demands that impoverish large sections of their people and deprive them of social security do not contribute to progress, but to the corruption of society. If, however, the European Union wants to contribute to the quality of society, we must be tough on the environment, human rights and good governance.
Are we now absolutely certain that near Rosia Montana, or elsewhere in Romania, no gold is being mined with dangerous chemical substances that result in streams of toxic water in that country and in neighbouring countries? Are we certain that the Kresna gorge in Bulgaria, being a vulnerable nature reserve, is protected against the increasing freight traffic by road? Are the new laws that are copied and translated from the
actually implemented? Are the equal rights of the substantial Roma population guaranteed? What about the orphans and food safety? Sadly, we have not had adequate responses to those questions from either candidate country, which means that we cannot give our verdict about what should happen next until next year."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples