Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-04-Speech-3-055"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-12-04"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Preparation of the Copenhagen European Council (Copenhagen, 12-13 December 2002)2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20021204.3.3-055"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-12-04-Speech-3-0562
lpv:speaker	lp:Margrietus van den Berg2
lpv:spokenAs	vice-chair; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Partij van de Arbeid (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Committee on Development and Cooperation (2002-01-22--2004-07-19)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (2002-02-06--2004-07-19)3 substitute; AFCO (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of Central America and Mexico (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I should like to concur with Mr Brok. What is crucial, of course, is that we welcome the Member States and that this House – soon to be newly elected – can codecide on the new President of the Commission, but that is where his and my line of reasoning part ways. I am pleased that he has mentioned 1 May as an important date, but I would say that this 1 May could, in fact, be the date for European elections, in which case I would be in Mr Napolitano’s camp. I should like to briefly update you on what has been happening in the Netherlands recently. There, we saw a Dutch Liberal leader, Mr Gerrit Zalm, launch a kamikaze campaign. He demanded that the Netherlands should thwart enlargement with a view to enforcing agricultural reforms. Fortunately, Mr Zalm has been sidelined for the time being, but with the forthcoming elections on 22 January 2003 in the Netherlands, he naturally remains a dangerous force to be reckoned with. The Dutch will hopefully elect a government that recognises the benefits of stability and economic growth, as well as the importance of a reunited Europe, thus preventing the Dutch reputation from being tarnished any further. This does not detract in any way from the primary importance of those agricultural reforms to the enlargement countries, candidate countries, to us ourselves, and to the developing countries. And what is evident is that, thanks to Mr Fischler's proposals, we already have many sound proposals on the table, but that many Member States still threaten to obstruct them. What we need is the courage to do our homework in the area of agricultural reforms, and this is also necessary to help the dollar round succeed. Indeed, we may talk about a development round, but if no firmer and broader-based proposals benefiting agricultural reforms are tabled, then things will take a turn for the worse and this round will fail. In that case, we will not have done our homework, which is necessary if the accession countries are to be treated fairly. Mention is made of net and gross accounts between Europe and the enlargement countries too easily without sufficiently acknowledging the necessity of those agricultural reforms. Could I add that I hope that the discussions we are having here will somehow serve as a lesson to us in the next step towards enlargement by the accession of more countries? Let us have a less ambiguous and earlier debate with our electorates, and let us have the courage to ask for their opinions in good time by means of a European referendum. In my view, we have built in too much technocracy and not enough politics this time round. We have learnt that these are political decisions. We should summon up the courage to look our own people in the eye and accept their judgments."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph