Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-03-Speech-2-203"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001003.5.2-203"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, there was relatively little comment regarding Elmar Brok’s idea expressed today of an arrangement similar to the EEA Agreement as an alternative for those applicant countries that do not meet the Copenhagen criteria. I think the suggestion is worth looking into.
The EEA Agreement is definitely no substitute for proper membership and must not leave countries in a waiting room for an eternity, from which there would be no chance of moving forward, but it could act as a sort of tool for encouraging the applicant countries, in a way that promises a reward, to implement the
The EEA could act as a kind of hatchery, where EU embryos would mature into fully fledged members
If full membership is granted in the context of a brief timetable, a big cause for concern for companies in the Member States will be the long transitional periods, as competition will be distorted. On the other hand, a slow pace is also an obvious problem, leaving the candidate countries frustrated. The good sense of the EEA model was born of this tension, as it rewards the applicant at the stage of aspiring to accession. This would mean greater commitment to the implementation of EU legislation than what is required in the present convergence agreements.
The EEA, which contains issues relating to the first pillar, would give businesses in the applicant countries access to the Internal Market and youth and science the right to engage in exchange programmes, but, on the other hand, would not yet oblige the EU to extend their agricultural aid schemes to these countries. Thus, the EEA Agreement could act as a positive stimulus mainly to the economies of the applicant countries – they need growth to make their societies fit for accession – but also to the EU economy, as through economic growth we can reckon to cover as much as two thirds of the costs of enlargement, perhaps even more with the EEA model in place.
The eastern Central European markets are said to be so open as a result of the convergence agreements that western businessmen might selfishly wonder why enlargement is still required. The answer is the implementation of the
If the markets were opened up even with restrictions without the proper means of regulating them socially and ecologically, nothing would protect the citizens of an applicant country against social and ecological dumping. In the end we also need to protect ourselves from it. The good sense of the EEA model is based on the idea that efforts to implement legislation should be rewarded immediately. Benefits and responsibilities go hand in hand.
An EEA model, which led to membership, and, at the same time, was a reward scheme, would be productive also as far as public opinion was concerned. As the positive aspects for the economy would be highlighted already prior to membership proper, it would be a basis for justifying enlargement to the greatest possible degree. This holds good for both the citizens of the applicant countries and those of the present Member States."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples