Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-16-Speech-2-199"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060516.35.2-199"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
I would advise my fellow Member to look at the integration of the Roma in Italy, and the integration of minorities in other Member States, in the old Member States and then to talk further, without interruption – perhaps.
Ladies and gentlemen, when the then French and German leaders, President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl, decided in 1990 to address the countries of Central, Southern and Eastern Europe, they said: ‘Welcome to a European Union free of borders. We are inviting you to participate in a common project that is open to all the countries of Europe. We want to assist you in catching up rapidly with our technical standards and with bringing your legal norms into line with those of the other states.’ Several years later in Copenhagen three conditions were passed, which the states interested in joining the EU would have to fulfil. The economic component of the Copenhagen criteria is obscure and is usually interpreted as including acceptance into the WTO (World Trade Organisation), as well as an EU Association Agreement.
The political component talks of the peaceful settling of relations with neighbouring states and of the politics of nationalities. That is something the old EU Member States have yet to master. In 1993 there was still no talk of selling off national assets, of liquidation quotas for agricultural products, or of the dismantling of nuclear power stations. The one fundamental requirement at that time was not to undermine conditions for the exchange of goods between the candidate countries and the EU. At the time, the Commission opened negotiations with 12 states. The negotiating agenda was technically broken up into 29 chapters, a section headed ‘Various’ and a section headed ‘Institutions’. After the end of negotiations, two years ago, 10 states were accepted as members. Up to this day there are some conditions – for example, those for drawing on funds – that have yet to be finalised for them. Their terms of accession include a whole series of discriminatory measures, and the fact is that these have been very poorly evaluated, especially in the areas of agriculture and the food industry. The inequality between the inhabitants of the old and the new Member States is all too apparent.
We find ourselves today in a curious situation. An entire agenda has been negotiated with Bulgaria and Romania, there has been agreement on all of the chapters, and now a new set of strange and discriminatory measures are appearing. These involve restitution demands, the dismantling of modern generator plants at the Kozloduj power station and unequal terms for agriculture and the food industry. People talk of corruption, of reforming the judiciary, of the situation of children, human trafficking and so on. Everything that applies to the old states applies to the new states. I understand the fanatical opponents of nuclear power. It is clear to me that their views will not change and that they could not care less about the energy situation in the Balkans. What surprises me is the position of Italy and Greece. They rely on Kozloduj for some of their power supplies. This means that after the plant has been shut down, Italy will be more dependent on imports from France and other countries. How will Greece make up for the missing power? Probably by burning more coal, regardless of agreements made under the Kyoto Protocol. They can always purchase emission permits. As for the Bulgarians, they will just have to burn candles, as the power station at Belene is still in the early stages of planning, unless the European Commission perhaps has another environmentally-friendly but workable solution. Just think for a moment, please, and try to explain how the EU is really contributing to the development of these two countries. Perhaps it is simply a matter of ensuring that they are not accepted into the Union on reasonable terms? My group is wholly in favour of their being accepted within the deadline of 1 July 2007."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples