Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-09-Speech-3-020"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021009.4.3-020"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Ireland is one of the two countries in which a majority of people would regret the EU’s being dissolved. The Treaty of Nice has been tested in the country which is most favourably disposed to the EU, yet 54% of the population voted against it. It would, then, have been more natural to have asked the inhabitants of other countries whether they cared for the treaty but, instead, the Irish were asked to vote on it again, as in fact they
doing, faced with the threat that, if they do not, enlargement will come to a halt. In all honesty, is there a single minister who would put the brakes on enlargement if the Irish were to vote ‘no’. Of course not. Enlargement will continue. The situation is anticipated in the Treaty of Amsterdam in the form of a protocol which, by giving them a double majority or more votes in the Council, will compensate the five largest countries for the loss of their second Commissioner. This outcome was negotiated on the spot in Nice. It is not something to boast about, but it exists in a special declaration which is not part of the treaty and has not therefore been rejected, either. It can be called into play, irrespective of whether the Irish vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
I must also call upon the Brussels Summit to correct the figures. It is a scandal that Hungary and Turkey are being offered fewer places in the European Parliament than countries with smaller populations. The new weighting system is impossible to remember, even for ministers. Instead, a straightforward system should be devised which can be explained to the people of those countries that are shortly to vote on membership.
There should also be more flexibility in relation to the candidate countries. The EU should not receive them like a steamroller that crushes everything they themselves have devised in the way of laws. We should be content to lay down requirements concerning their conduct in the common market and allow them to retain their freedom in all the areas in which there is no documented common need for cross-border laws. They should be allowed to decide for themselves whether to keep their national currencies.
Agricultural land in the Czech Republic costs 10% of that in Germany. Why not allow the candidate countries to keep their laws concerning the purchase and sale of land. What would the Czechs say if Sudetenland were to be bought up with German euros. I come from that part of Denmark that was occupied by Germany. Today, we have an excellent relationship with our neighbours, which I commend and consider to be a model for Northern Ireland and other areas with national tensions. The Danish summer house protocol contributes to the good relationship between Danes and Germans. Without this, the best situated houses would be bought up, because the price of a German summer house is several times that of a Danish one.
The transitional arrangements agreed with the candidate countries encourage unnecessary division and will give rise to many ‘no’ votes in the referendums.
My group has different attitudes to enlargement. The Danish June Movement is heavily critical of the conditions we are offering the candidate countries, but those of us in this Chamber will vote in favour of them because we respect the candidate countries’ own decisions. We hope that the many new democracies can breathe some democratic life into us so that we might obtain a slimmer, freer, open and decentralised Europe for all.
With greater flexibility, Bulgaria and Romania could also join. It is a little sad to see them excluded, because they have been left to languish in poverty for a far longer period."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples