Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-10-25-Speech-2-142"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051025.20.2-142"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, earlier this year, my group had its own doubts about the new government, but we were very much in favour of giving it the opportunity to address a large number of serious problems. The moment of truth has now arrived. Has the new government succeeded or failed? If we listen to the Commissioner and read the report, we can, in fact, discern a picture emerging that is in keeping with recent Amnesty International reports – a combination of progress in some areas, but ongoing problems in a number of others.
It is up to this House – and I am also addressing the Romanian and Bulgarian representatives when I say this – to focus on the existing problems that still need addressing, which you may or may not like, because I share Mr Brok’s view that there is no automatism that could solve all the problems. Allow me to single out two of them.
One of them is the fight against corruption, and this is where we have to be honest. The image we in the Netherlands, but also in many other Member States, have of Romania is determined in the public mind by the notion that that country suffers greatly from corruption, whether that be at low level or the highest level. It is particularly at this highest level of bureaucracy and politics that something must be done, and that is why it is a good thing – I would like to say this here – that, for example, an old case that was closed in 2003 against Mrs Puwak, the former EU minister in Romania, has been reopened, because there was something fishy about that case, to put it bluntly.
Something must be done about this, and I would urge the Romanian authorities to really give this priority. You cannot afford to leave this matter to be dealt with by a handful of public prosecutors and judges alone. I would urge you to do what you can in order to remove that image many European citizens have.
Secondly, with regard to the environment and food safety, the Commission has turned its attention to another issue that is a sensitive one for many members of the European public, that being food safety. I think that accession should be out of the question if a country does not regulate that properly. The Commission is right to focus on this. What is missing, though, is attention to genetically modified organisms. According to the Commission’s very brief statement on this subject, there are no real concerns there. This is inconsistent with reports issued by Greenpeace, among others, which are far more alarming.
Romania is Europe’s largest area for genetically modified organisms. It grows crops that would be unlawful in the EU, and because of a lack of knowledge on the part of the Romanian authorities, there is very little in the way of information to the Romanian public and it is impossible to check whether European guidelines are adhered to. That is unacceptable. A country such as this cannot join the European Union just like that.
Those problems, namely corruption and GMOs, must be resolved by the beginning of next year. In the unlikely event of this not being done, then it should be possible to defer accession by one year. To the Commissioner, who is a football fan, I would say the following. We have often mentioned yellow cards. If at the end of regular match time, neither of the teams has scored, then extra time can be granted. That too, is part and parcel of the rules."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples