Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-03-Speech-2-134"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001003.4.2-134"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I feel that it would be right and proper to begin my intervention by referring to the fact that, today, 3 October, we are celebrating the first ten years of German reunification. This extraordinary event, symbolised by the fall of the Berlin wall which separated two blocks of countries and also divided one nation, to a certain extent represented a pioneering step in the process of European enlargement towards Central and Eastern Europe.
My fifth point, which concerns the adoption of the
is that we must acknowledge the fact that Hungary is continuing to act in a balanced way. Finally, there is the issue of the environment and the problems of cross-border pollution resulting from Hungary’s geographical situation. The pollution that we have seen in the Danube and Tizsa rivers, caused by cyanide leaks in Romania, is a classic example of this situation.
I would like to say a final word in order to voice the concerns of some of my colleagues in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy regarding Soviet-made nuclear reactors. This issue needs to be addressed seriously but within a broader framework that covers not just Hungary but also the other candidate countries that still operate this antiquated and relatively unsafe technology. I am therefore pleased to see that it has been addressed in Mr Brok’s general report on enlargement. It now only remains for me to ask my fellow Members to ensure that we have an enlightening debate and a vote which contributes, both in its outcome and in the way it is expressed, to a meeting between the old democracies of the West and the new Democracies of the East, for the sake, ultimately, of the European Union’s enlargement process.
Despite the difficulties, the contradictions and the social and economic disparities, which, as everyone knows, still exist between West and East Germany, the truth is that a project for a collective future of peace, freedom and development triumphed. This would probably not have been possible if the voices advocating caution and those that supported a particular kind of technical and bureaucratic rationalism had not been pushed into the background. The European Council, which met in Copenhagen following this reunification, decided to integrate into the European Union any associated States of Central and Eastern Europe that wished to join. The 1993 Copenhagen Council made it clear that the accession of the countries from Central and Eastern Europe would depend on their meeting the obligations that are part and parcel of membership of the Union. In other words, these States would have to fulfil a range of economic and political conditions that were considered to be essential prerequisites for their integration. On 30 March 1998, a negotiation process was finally opened with the first group of countries, including Hungary, the country which is the subject of the progress report now under discussion in the European Parliament.
I think I can say that this report, which has been duly discussed and improved upon in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy where it received unanimous approval, describes and analyses extremely thoroughly the current stage of Hungary’s path towards accession, in its dual approach to the issue. Firstly, Parliament has used it as a tool to assess the periodic report drafted by the Commission in 1999 on Hungary’s progress. Secondly, the report serves as both an expression and the result of the vision that the rapporteur has been putting together on Hungary’s current situation.
In this speech, I propose to highlight and discuss the six aspects of Hungary’s changing situation with a view to its accession to the European Union, which warrant specific mention. First of all, in terms of fulfilling the political criteria that were laid down in Copenhagen, Hungary’s situation is, by and large, satisfactory. We have seen a consolidation of the democracy which is strengthening the positive trends that have already been shown. The problems that do remain are not therefore related to the exercising or safeguarding of civil or political rights but involve fighting more effectively against some less positive aspects.
In this context, the issue of integrating the ethnic gypsy minority into Hungarian society has been central to the discussions held in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. In our opinion, efforts to abolish all discrimination against the Roma community must be based on a raft of positive measures which have, in part, been launched by the Hungarian Government as part of a medium-term action plan which is supported by the PHARE programme, particularly in the field of education and in specific programmes to improve employment and housing.
These policies must lead to the free and unforced assimilation of individuals belonging to the gypsy community. This was the idea that we wished to convey in this part of the report and, therefore, we cannot fully agree with the wording of Recital c, which is the result of an amendment approved in committee and emphasises the fact that a situation of segregation still remains in children’s education, as does severe discrimination in various sectors of society, the economy and the public sector. This is not borne out by my own observation of the current situation.
Secondly, it is worth raising the issue of Hungary’s economic situation, which has seen improved growth and made Hungary the economic leader in the region. Public finances have been cleaned up and we have seen a marked improvement in the balance of payments. The pattern of consumption has changed as a result of higher salaries, lower unemployment and a reduction in the rate of inflation.
Thirdly, with regard to agriculture, which has a lower level of productivity than in the European Union, we need to ensure that the agricultural market is fully opened up to the capital that is necessary for land privatisation, for the modernisation of farms and marketing structures and for improving yields. The prohibition on non-Hungarian citizens buying farmland is, however, an obstacle to setting a fair price for this land.
Fourthly, there is the topical issue of the fight against organised crime, specifically crime that has its roots in Russia. The high level of crime and the considerable implications of this type of crime are perhaps Hungary's most serious domestic issue, despite the fact that the Hungarian Parliament has already voted in favour of a raft of measures on money-laundering, on longer sentences for drug-trafficking and prostitution, on confiscating funds and on a witness-protection programme for informers."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples