Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-06-14-Speech-3-069"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060614.2.3-069"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to mention three key issues regarding the enlargement of the European Union.
The first issue is the consolidation of the current round of enlargement, that is, are we using the same standard when we decide to allow new Member States to enter the euro zone? That is, is the European Union going to ensure that the conditions for the enlargement of the Schengen area are in place by next year as far as the European Union is concerned? That is, are we going to create the Fundamental Rights Agency, which has already been adopted by the European Parliament, or are we going to sabotage it instead? These are important questions at a time when we have seen that for instance, for the first time ever, we applied a sanction against the will of a Member State in the case of Lithuania, a Member State applying for entry in the euro zone. Why is a price stability policy desirable in the case of a country in the process of catching up? Or should perhaps deflation be a term of reference in this case? Also, was the perspective of a Maastricht criterion better in 1999 in an Italy indebted to the hilt, than it would be today in Vilnius? Why are the ten new Member States lectured about inflation, through Lithuania, by those in whose countries the situation is progressively worsening, such as in the Spain of Mr Alumnia or the Luxembourg of Mr Juncker? This is rightfully branded as a disgraceful approach by none other than one of the fathers of the euro, Professor Lámfalussy. And can the esteemed Council and Commission take the strategic political decision of not recommending admission, without Parliament, who is usually so proud of its privileges? How is the same standard applied in this case?
Secondly, are we really going to wait for the assessment of the Commission in autumn, regarding the date and conditions of accession for Romania and Bulgaria, if we have already extracted this through an exchange of letters? Are we preparing to rush the accession of countries that are falling dramatically behind current Member States, and even behind the ten new Member States, as regards their economic and social indicators and the level of corruption? What kind of Europe is this going to be? What is the vision here? Will this society comply with and apply the law when it is part of the European Union? In countries where, for instance, there is no registration of the Roma or of land ownership, or where there are tens of thousands of abandoned babies? And what about the largest indigenous national minority, the millions of Hungarian speakers? Why do we not take a look, as regards this case, at our own Copenhagen statements about minorities, made in 1993, or at previous Parliament and Commission presentations, where minority rights and democracy used to have equal standing?
Thirdly, we must also address the standard and speed of individual negotiations. When are we going to admit, in the course of enlargement negotiations, that the level of preparedness and European integration of Croatia is outstanding, and that it would present fewer absorption problems than, for instance, Turkey? Without consistency and the use of the same standard, the prestige of the European Union will remain low, and it is clearly visible that by the unhurried building of the two-phase integration, it takes back everything that it has had to spend on the enlargement of the EU. This is the real, but negative item."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples