Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-03-13-Speech-3-019"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-03-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Enlargement2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20020313.2.3-019"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-03-13-Speech-3-0202
lpv:speaker	lp:Elisabeth Schroedter2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Bündnis 90/die Grünen (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; G/EFA (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Delegation to the EU-Ukraine and the EU-Moldova Parliamentary Cooperation Committees and Delegation for relations with Belarus (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-06--2004-04-30)3 member; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office, I must say that I can see an astonishing transformation. Whereas we have, over and over again, invented new and grand names for the enlargement of the European Union –‘Europe's achievement of the century’ and ‘peace project for the continent’ spring to mind – recent weeks have seen the addition of a new name for it: the ‘enlargement savings bank’. This ‘achievement of the century’ is saving the fifteen EU finance ministers a cool EUR 18 billion over against the financial decisions reached in Berlin! This is not to say that the financial decisions reached in Berlin were set rather too high through being wrongly estimated. On the contrary, criticisms were voiced at the time that it would probably not be enough for enlargement. It was said, though, out of fear of the net contributors, that we still had the reserves, and that we could call on them if it came to that. The opposite, though, is the case; the Commission has for weeks been repeating the slogan that enlargement must not cost anything. This strikes me as playing at a topsy-turvy world, as a peace project costs a fair bit. There cannot be a two-class Europe, as that would produce social tensions, migration and under-development. We Greens therefore call for the financial forecasts to be re-examined. It is not true that rural areas and the Structural Fund are getting more. It is precisely at these points that conspicuous cuts are being made over against what was estimated in Berlin. It would, basically, be necessary to use for enlargement the EUR 15 billion that are to be given straight back to the finance ministers of the fifteen EU States in 2002 and 2003. I also believe that transitional periods are possible until 2007 at the latest. The attempt to delay phasing-in even further, until 2007, is a pusillanimous proposal and evidence of the Commission's incapacity, as it would mean that the agricultural policy would not be reformed, and that they want to adjourn the mid-term review that makes the European Union do its homework. We are not going along with that. We need an agricultural policy under which aid is linked in with ecological and social criteria and projects are funded only if they are compatible with the reform. The candidate countries, though, must participate in this reform on an equal footing. The Commission continues to reject one important proposal by Parliament, namely that the agricultural reform should be introduced now in the candidate countries in order to strengthen rural areas, and that this should be done with the citizens who live there. The Commission, I believe, must stop acting in a feeble manner, and must have the courage to reform, and the courage to tell us that enlargement will cost money if it is to be a success."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Applause)"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph