Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-04-28-Speech-4-047"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050428.6.4-047"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, in the name of the European Socialists, I welcome the report; its contents are accurate and contain feasible recommendations. I am especially glad that we are debating this report almost exactly on the first anniversary of the accession.
According to the report, the
has not only been fully implemented by several new Member States to the required extent, but often even with extra rigour that most of the existing Members have not yet applied. Interestingly enough, instead of improving the Internal Market, it partly distorted it at the same time, for the following reasons: succeeding the political changeover, the countries have only made partial progress in economic reforms. 98% of the business structure is characterised by small and medium enterprises that struggle with capital deficit and their access to information is limited. The prolonged costs involved with adopting the
will still remain a burden for new Member States for several more years.
On the other hand, enlargement with these ten plus two Members brought about some less frequently emphasised general changes as well as those which existed earlier. The nearly 150 million new members make up one third of the EU’s population. Around the time of accession, the economies of the existing Member States, unlike those at previous enlargements, are less prosperous and they are awaiting reforms themselves. It is a good thing with the current enlargement, that there no longer exists two world systems.
Politicians carry a great responsibility. Politicians, who regard the EP as an international stage for national political debate – even though originally it was not their intention – become obstacles to solving EU problems. A European politician strives to create a framework for solution at an EU level, where all Member States may find the crutches that they need in order to take their next step at home. I hope we all belong to this group.
What should we do? We need a political style that is clear, factual and calms emotions, instead of stirring them up. We need to restore quickly the balance of the Internal Market, which is most definitely guaranteed to limit the movement of the labour force. For the new Member States, completing the Internal Market means proper functioning of the administrative system, while in the case of the majority of existing Member States, it includes meeting their own target of the 1.5% deficit limit. Future European legislation must not lead to the distortion of the Internal Market (like the Service Directive did, for example), nor should it encumber the economy with enormous costs (see Directive on Rice, for instance), especially affecting disadvantaged parties. It is the responsibility of politicians and of the whole institutional system to put law into daily practice governing the life of European citizens. A good example of this is the department of DG Enterprise that supports small enterprises, including the European Information Centres, which are so successful in Hungary and other countries. A negative example, however, is that the forms used to differentiate between enterprises are still not available in all the languages of the Member States. A politician once said, ‘people are not prisoners of their fate, but of their opinions’. We must do our best in order to bring about change, instead of political bluffing ..."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples