Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-10-25-Speech-2-164"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051025.20.2-164"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, please allow me to thank you personally for your continued openness in handling our proposals regarding accession issues.
The inclusion of Romania and Bulgaria in the EU is a historical moment. But let us leave the historical significance aside for a moment, and face the bare facts at last. A key issue of the current debate is whether the country report reflects the realities of Romania, and if it does, to what extent. On this occasion, I would like to concentrate on Romania.
We would have to examine a number of areas, and not only in light of the official statistics, but based on everyday reality. The report of the Commission does stress some of the serious issues, such as the internal market, animal health regulation and food safety, or it remarks on the absence of institutions that would make agricultural assistance available to Romanian farmers. At the same time, significant measures have been introduced in respect of the reform of the judicial system. The Commission is appreciative of these measures, and Mrs Macovei, the Minister, is to be commended for them. But while we are hearing about resounding achievements in the area of political criteria and are informed that the situation of the 1.6 million Hungarians living in the country has been resolved, there have not been any actual changes. Like in the case of the Minority Act, none of the partial solutions have actually been accepted. Although the report still mentions it as a positive development, I must inform the Commissioner that the Romanian Senate rejected the Minority Act yesterday. And in the course of the debate there was hate talk and discrimination that would not bring credit to any democracy in the world. Hungarians living in Romania must have heard similar things at the beginning of the 90s.
In light of the shocking vote yesterday, there does not seem to be any possibility of cultural or any other type of autonomy that would actually provide a solution for the large Hungarian community. To quote the chairperson of the competent expert committee of the Romanian House: ‘Such a thing is an impossibility in a rule of law state!’ My question is, what kind of a rule of law state is this? The legal framework for returning church property has been put in place. However, in practice, the return of church property is made impossible, the reclaimed buildings are being privatised underhandedly or the privatisation process is slowed down by successive lawsuits. Proprietary rights cannot be enforced. What kind of working market economy are we talking about here? First of all, we must spell out the problems, because naming the problems may help find a solution. Our task here in Parliament is to name the problems, and it is a considerable task. This is the most effective way of helping people living in Romania. By a willingness to see the real situation, together with and for those who ought to see it in Brussels and in Romania."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples