Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-04-Speech-2-089"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-07-04"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Statement by Presidency-in-Office of Council – Action programme of French presidency2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000704.3.2-089"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-07-04-Speech-2-0902
lpv:speaker	lp:Astrid Thors2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 chair; Delegation to the EU-Romania Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-13--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Svenska folkpartiet (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Lithuania Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 member; PETI (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (1999-09-13--2002-01-14)3 member_of_the_bureau; ELDR (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Mr President, the French presidency’s programme is interesting and in no way devoid of substance. There is a lot one can agree with. I nonetheless wonder whether it is in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity to talk about housing, health care and sport. Ought the EU really to be devoting itself to those kinds of issue? The idea of a community of values is important, but opinions are divided on how this is to be achieved. Many of us are disappointed at Prime Minister Jospin’s statement to the effect that there will be no change during the French presidency when it comes to the 14 countries’ boycott of Austria. The intensive discussion in recent weeks of our visions of Europe’s future has been stimulating, but it causes disquiet in the candidate States. Where exactly does the EU stand? This is an issue to which Mr Cox also referred. The unclear signals give scope to populists with nationalist agendas in the candidate States who want to prevent their countries from becoming Members of the Union. Was it a coincidence that no statement was made at Feira to the effect that we should be ready for enlargement by the year 2002? Does the French presidency’s policy concerning a further Intergovernmental Conference at the end of 2003 or the beginning of 2004 imply support for Chancellor Schröder’s proposal for a new conference on the division of labour? Even in that case, the signals are unclear, which is alarming for the candidate States. To conclude, I would point to one instance of unilateral action which is worrying. Why did France discontinue Slovakia’s membership of the OECD, citing the EU’s directive on TV issues? Was it right to do this off its own bat, without checking what the other Member States thought? What was the reason for its action? This has also given rise to concern in the candidate States about the attitude we take to their legislation and to their legitimate interest in being involved in OECD cooperation, which is economically important."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph