Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-12-13-Speech-3-010"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061213.4.3-010"6
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I would like to make five points about our report on integration capacity. I will start by thanking all those colleagues involved in the process and certainly those in the secretariat who did a wonderful job.
My first point is about the terminology we are using today. The original term which we dealt with was ‘absorption capacity’. When we were discussing who was going to do this report, I talked to Mr Absorption himself – my good friend Mr Brok. We came to the conclusion that perhaps absorption is not the best term to use. I think Mr Karl Bild put it very well when he said: who wants to be absorbed by the European Union? Does France want to be absorbed by the European Union? Of course the answer is no. So we went for a more dynamic, more positive term and decided that ‘integration capacity’ is really what we are looking at.
My second point is that this is potentially a sensitive subject because there are many interests. My colleague and friend Mr Brok made reference to some of them. In other words you have those types of people who are against enlargement but for the Constitution. You have those who are against the Constitution but for enlargement. Then you have those like me who are for the Constitution and for enlargement, and then there are the likes of Mr Farage and the rest who are against both.
What we tried to do was swim through these four types of interest and I think we have done it fairly well in this report. The notion of integration capacity is nothing really new. We have always had it. There is always a debate before each and every enlargement about how much the European Union should deepen. Before 1973 the Union became a customs union. Before 1986 the Single European Act was put forward. Before the Finnish-Austrian-Swedish accession you had the Maastricht Treaty. Before the big bang in 2004 you had Amsterdam and Nice. What we want is to have a constitution before the next enlargement.
Thirdly, how do we define integration capacity? I think the conclusion of this report is that you can give a vague notion of what it actually means and you could say that it is not a condition for enlargement, but it is a criterion for us, the current Member States. We have to put our house in order before we are able to enlarge. The difficulty is that you cannot give integration capacity a strict definition because it is linked to two things. One: the time of accession. Two: the number of new states coming in. In other words, enlargement in 1973 was radically different to enlargement in 2004. Still on the definition, integration capacity is about three things: institutions, budget and policies.
My fourth point is about the public debate, and here I would like to point the finger at the European Council, which is saying that we need to link enlargement to public opinion. We say yes, of course you have to do that, but do not tell me that you do not have the opportunity to do it. Enlargement negotiations are opened through unanimity. Each chapter is opened with unanimity. Each chapter is closed with unanimity. The whole package is approved by unanimity, and on top of that each Member State is supposed to ratify accession. If within those two to ten years you are not able to explain the benefits of enlargement to the general public I think you are miserably failing in your job, so please do your job and then come and start talking about public opinion. We need more strategic thinking on enlargement.
My final point is about the Constitution. This report outlines a number of issues which we desperately need to clarify before the next enlargement: qualified majority voting, legal personality, the foreign minister, common security policy, etc. These are issues that we badly need to deal with before we can enlarge. The message from this report is: let us get that house in order before 2009 and then start enlarging.
I shall finish with this. Enlargement is probably the best policy the European Union has ever had. It has brought with it peace, prosperity, security and stability. When we talk about enlargement let us not give poor excuses because we know that we are never and yet always ready to enlarge."@en4
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to make five points about our report on integration capacity. I will start by thanking all those colleagues involved in the process and certainly those in the secretariat who did a wonderful job.
My first point is about the terminology we are using today. The original term which we dealt with was ‘absorption capacity’. When we were discussing who was going to do this report, I talked to Mr Absorption himself – my good friend Mr Brok. We came to the conclusion that perhaps absorption is not the best term to use. I think Carl Bildt put it very well when he said: who wants to be absorbed by the European Union? Does France want to be absorbed by the European Union? Of course the answer is no. So we went for a more dynamic, more positive term and decided that ‘integration capacity’ is really what we are looking at.
My second point is that this is potentially a sensitive subject because there are many interests. My colleague and friend Mr Brok made reference to some of them. In other words you have those types of people who are against enlargement but for the Constitution. You have those who are against the Constitution but for enlargement. Then you have those like me who are for the Constitution and for enlargement, and then there are the likes of Mr Farage and the rest who are against both.
What we tried to do was swim through these four types of interest and I think we have done it fairly well in this report. The notion of integration capacity is nothing really new. We have always had it. There is always a debate before each and every enlargement about how much the European Union should deepen. Before 1973 the Union became a customs union. Before 1986 the Single European Act was put forward. Before the Finnish-Austrian-Swedish accession you had the Maastricht Treaty. Before the big bang in 2004 you had Amsterdam and Nice. What we want is to have a constitution before the next enlargement.
Thirdly, how do we define integration capacity? I think the conclusion of this report is that you can give a vague notion of what it actually means and you could say that it is not a condition for enlargement, but it is a criterion for us, the current Member States. We have to put our house in order before we are able to enlarge. The difficulty is that you cannot give integration capacity a strict definition because it is linked to two things. One: the time of accession. Two: the number of new states coming in. In other words, enlargement in 1973 was radically different to enlargement in 2004. Still on the definition, integration capacity is about three things: institutions, budget and policies.
My fourth point is about the public debate, and here I would like to point the finger at the European Council, which is saying that we need to link enlargement to public opinion. We say yes, of course you have to do that, but do not tell me that you do not have the opportunity to do it. Enlargement negotiations are opened through unanimity. Each chapter is opened with unanimity. Each chapter is closed with unanimity. The whole package is approved by unanimity, and on top of that each Member State is supposed to ratify accession. If within those two to ten years you are not able to explain the benefits of enlargement to the general public I think you are miserably failing in your job, so please do your job and then come and start talking about public opinion. We need more strategic thinking on enlargement.
My final point is about the Constitution. This report outlines a number of issues which we desperately need to clarify before the next enlargement: qualified majority voting, legal personality, the foreign minister, common security policy, etc. These are issues that we badly need to deal with before we can enlarge. The message from this report is: let us get that house in order before 2009 and then start enlarging.
I shall finish with this. Enlargement is probably the best policy the European Union has ever had. It has brought with it peace, prosperity, security and stability. When we talk about enlargement let us not give poor excuses because we know that we are never and yet always ready to enlarge."@cs1
"Hr. formand! Der er fem punkter i forbindelse med betænkningen om integrationskapacitet, jeg gerne vil tage fat på. Indledningsvis vil jeg gerne takke de af mine kolleger, der har været involveret i processen, og ikke mindst dem i sekretariatet, der har gjort et fantastisk stykke arbejde.
Det første punkt handler om den terminologi, vi bruger i dag. Det oprindelige udtryk var "absorptionskapacitet". Mens vi diskuterede, hvem der skulle lave denne betænkning, talte jeg med selveste Hr. Absorption - min gode ven hr. Brok. Vi nåede frem til, at absorption måske ikke er det bedste ord. Jeg tror, hr. Karl Bild udtrykte det meget fint, da han sagde: "Hvem ønsker at blive absorberet af EU? Ønsker Frankrig at blive absorberet af EU?" Svaret er naturligvis nej. Så vi gik efter et mere dynamisk, mere positivt udtryk og besluttede, at det faktisk er "integrationskapacitet", det handler om.
Det andet punkt er, at der er tale om et potentielt følsomt emne, eftersom der er mange interesser. Min kollega og ven hr. Brok har omtalt nogle af dem. Der findes altså mennesker, der er imod udvidelse, men for forfatningen. Andre er imod forfatningen, men for udvidelse. Og så er der dem, der ligesom mig er for forfatningen og for udvidelse, og der er folk som hr. Farage og alle de andre, der er imod begge dele.
Vi forsøgte at navigere igennem disse fire typer interesser, og jeg synes, vi har klaret det ret godt i denne betænkning. Begrebet integrationskapacitet er i virkeligheden ikke nyt. Det har altid været der. Der er altid debat før hver eneste udvidelse om, hvor meget tilnærmelse der skal ske i EU. Før 1973 blev EU en toldunion. Før 1986 blev den europæiske fælles akt foreslået. Før Finlands, Østrigs og Sveriges tiltrædelse var der Maastricht-traktaten. Før
i 2004 var der Amsterdam og Nice. Det, vi ønsker, er at få en forfatning før næste udvidelse.
For det tredje, hvordan skal vi definere integrationskapacitet? Jeg tror, at denne betænknings konklusion er, at man kan fremlægge en vag opfattelse af, hvad det egentlig betyder, og man kan sige, at det ikke er en betingelse for udvidelse, men det er et kriterium for os, de nuværende medlemsstater. Vi er nødt til at have styr på de indre linjer, før vi kan udvide. Det besværlige er, at man ikke kan formulere en præcis definition af integrationskapacitet, fordi det er knyttet til to ting. Et: tiltrædelsestidspunktet. To: antallet af nye lande, der bliver medlem af EU. Med andre ord, udvidelsen i 1973 var radikalt anderledes end udvidelsen i 2004. Stadig vedrørende definitionen: Integrationskapacitet handler om tre ting, nemlig institutioner, budget og politikker.
Det fjerde punkt handler om den offentlige debat, og her vil jeg gerne rette søgelyset mod Rådet, som siger, at vi skal knytte udvidelsen til den offentlige mening. Vi siger ja, selvfølgelig skal man det, men De skal ikke komme og fortælle mig, at De ikke har lejlighed til at gøre det. Tiltrædelsesforhandlinger åbnes med enstemmighed. Hvert kapitel åbnes med enstemmighed. Hvert kapitel lukkes med enstemmighed. Hele pakken vedtages med enstemmighed, og oven i købet er det meningen, at hver medlemsstat skal ratificere tiltrædelsen. Hvis man ikke kan forklare fordelene ved udvidelse til befolkningen i løbet af de to til 10 år, dette tager, mener jeg, at man er fuldstændig inkompetent til sit arbejde, så vær venlige at gøre Deres arbejde, så kan De komme og snakke om den offentlige mening. Vi har brug for flere strategiske overvejelser om udvidelse.
Den sidste ting er forfatningen. Betænkningen skitserer en række emner, som det er tvingende nødvendigt at få afklaret før næste udvidelse: anvendelse af kvalificeret flertal, status som juridisk person, udenrigsministeren, fælles sikkerhedspolitik osv. Det er særdeles nødvendigt, at vi tager hånd om disse emner, før vi kan udvide. Budskabet fra betænkningen er: lad os nu få styr på de indre linjer før 2009 og så begynde at udvide.
Afslutningsvis vil jeg sige, at udvidelse er nok den bedste politik, EU nogensinde har haft. Den har ført til fred, fremgang, sikkerhed og stabilitet. Lad os undgå dårlige undskyldninger, når vi snakker om udvidelse, for vi ved, at vi aldrig, og dog altid, er klar til at udvide."@da2
"Herr Präsident! Ich möchte auf fünf Punkte eingehen, die unseren Bericht über die Fähigkeit der Europäischen Union zur Aufnahme neuer Mitgliedstaaten betreffen. Bevor ich beginne, danke ich allen Kollegen, die an diesem Bericht mitgearbeitet haben, und natürlich auch den Kollegen im Sekretariat, die sehr gute Arbeit geleistet haben.
Meine erste Anmerkung bezieht sich auf die Terminologie, die wir heute verwenden. „Aufnahmefähigkeit“ („absorption capacity“) war der Begriff, der ursprünglich verwendet wurde. Als es um die Frage ging, wer diesen Bericht erarbeiten sollte, habe ich mit meinem geschätzten Kollegen, Herrn Brok, gesprochen, dessen Name eng mit diesem Thema verbunden ist. Wir kamen zu dem Schluss, dass der bisher verwendete Begriff möglicherweise nicht genau das trifft, was eigentlich gemeint ist. Carl Bildt hat das einmal sehr gut auf den Punkt gebracht, wie ich finde, als er sagte: Wer möchte schon von der Europäischen Union „absorbiert“ werden? Will Frankreich von der Europäischen Union absorbiert werden? Natürlich nicht. Deshalb haben wir nach einem dynamischeren, positiveren Begriff gesucht und festgestellt, dass „Integrationsfähigkeit“ das ist, worum es uns geht.
Mit meinem zweiten Punkt möchte ich darauf hinweisen, dass es sich hier naturgemäß um ein heikles Thema handelt, weil viele Interessen im Spiel sind. Mein Kollege Herr Brok hat einige davon bereits erwähnt. Anders ausgedrückt, gibt es verschiedene Gruppen: Da sind diejenigen, die gegen die Erweiterung, aber für die Verfassung sind. Andere lehnen die Verfassung ab, befürworten aber die Erweiterung. Dann gibt es diejenigen, die, wie ich selbst zum Beispiel, für die Verfassung und für die Erweiterung sind, und wieder andere, wie Herrn Farage und die Übrigen, die beides ablehnen.
Wir haben also versucht, einen Mittelweg zwischen diesen vier Interessenlagen zu finden, und ich glaube, dass uns das in diesem Bericht recht gut gelungen ist. Wirklich neu ist der Begriff der Integrationsfähigkeit nicht. Wir haben ihn immer schon verwendet. Es hat noch keine Erweiterung gegeben, ohne dass im Vorfeld eine Debatte darüber geführt worden wäre, wie weit die Vertiefung der Europäischen Union gehen sollte. Vor der Erweiterung 1973 wurde die Union zu einer Zollunion. Vor der Erweiterung 1986 wurde die Einheitliche Europäische Akte ins Leben gerufen. Vor dem Beitritt von Finnland, Österreich und Schweden wurde der Vertrag von Maastricht unterzeichnet. Vor der großen Erweiterung 2004 hatten wir die Verträge von Amsterdam und Nizza. Das Ziel, das wir vor der nächsten Erweiterung erreichen wollen, ist eine Verfassung.
In meinem dritten Punkt geht es um die Definition des Begriffs Integrationskapazität. Ich denke, die Erkenntnis aus diesem Bericht ist, dass man grob umreißen kann, was damit tatsächlich gemeint ist und dass man sagen kann, dass die Integrationsfähigkeit keine Voraussetzung für die Erweiterung ist, sondern ein Kriterium für uns, die derzeitigen Mitgliedstaaten. Wir müssen unsere Angelegenheiten in Ordnung bringen, bevor wir an eine Erweiterung denken können. Das Problem ist, dass eine präzise Definition des Begriffs Integrationsfähigkeit nicht möglich ist, weil sie von zwei Dingen abhängt. Erstens: dem Zeitpunkt des Beitritts. Zweitens: der Anzahl der neuen Staaten, die aufgenommen werden sollen. Anders ausgedrückt, können wir die Erweiterung von 1973 nicht mit der Erweiterung 2004 vergleichen. Doch lassen Sie uns noch einmal auf die Definition zurückkommen. Bei der Integrationsfähigkeit geht es um drei Dinge: Institutionen, Haushalt und Politik.
Mein vierter Punkt bezieht sich auf die öffentliche Aussprache, und hier möchte ich konkret den Europäischen Rat ansprechen, der sagt, dass wir die Erweiterung nicht vorantreiben dürfen, wenn sie von der Öffentlichkeit nicht mitgetragen wird. Das ist auch unsere Meinung. Natürlich müssen wir die Unterstützung der Öffentlichkeit gewinnen, aber erzählen Sie mir nicht, dass Ihnen die Möglichkeiten dazu fehlen. Ob Erweiterungsverhandlungen aufgenommen werden oder nicht, wird einstimmig entschieden. Zur Eröffnung der einzelnen Kapitel ist Einstimmigkeit erforderlich. Jedes Kapitel kann nur einstimmig geschlossen werden. Das gesamte Paket wird einstimmig angenommen, zudem muss jeder Beitritt von den Mitgliedstaaten ratifiziert werden. Wenn Sie in den zwei bis zehn Jahren, die dieser Prozess dauert, nicht in der Lage sind, die Öffentlichkeit von den Vorzügen einer Erweiterung zu überzeugen, sollten Sie sich fragen, was Sie falsch machen. Deshalb meine Bitte an Sie: Machen Sie Ihre Arbeit ordentlich und benutzen Sie die öffentliche Meinung nicht als Ausrede für Ihre eigenen Versäumnisse. Wir brauchen einen stärker strategisch orientierten Ansatz für die Erweiterung.
Mein letzter Punkt betrifft die Verfassung. In diesem Bericht werden mehrere Fragen angesprochen, die wir vor der nächsten Erweiterung dringend klären müssen: die Abstimmungen mit qualifizierter Mehrheit, die Rechtspersönlichkeit, die Schaffung des Postens eines Außenministers, die gemeinsame Sicherheitspolitik usw. Dies sind Fragen, die dringend geregelt werden müssen, bevor wir eine Erweiterung durchführen können. Die Kernaussage dieses Berichts ist, dass wir in der Zeit bis 2009 unsere Angelegenheiten regeln und uns erst dann wieder mit der Erweiterung beginnen sollten.
Lassen Sie mich zum Abschluss noch Folgendes sagen. Die Erweiterung ist sicherlich die erfolgreichste Politik, die die Europäische Union je betrieben hat. Sie hat Frieden, Wohlstand, Sicherheit und Stabilität geschaffen. Verzichten wir also auf fadenscheinige Ausreden, wenn wir über die Erweiterung sprechen, und gestehen wir uns ein, dass die optimalen Voraussetzungen für eine Erweiterung nie gegeben sind und eine Erweiterung trotzdem immer möglich ist."@de9
".
Κύριε Πρόεδρε, θέλω να προβώ σε πέντε επισημάνσεις ως προς την έκθεσή μας σχετικά με την ικανότητα ένταξης. Θέλω καταρχάς να ευχαριστήσω όλες και όλους τους συναδέλφους που μετείχαν σε αυτήν τη διαδικασία, κυρίως δε τα μέλη της γραμματείας, για το εξαιρετικό έργο που επιτέλεσαν.
Η πρώτη μου επισήμανση αφορά την ορολογία που χρησιμοποιούμε σήμερα. Ο όρος που αρχικά μας απασχόλησε ήταν η «ικανότητα απορρόφησης». Όταν συζητούσαμε το ποιος επρόκειτο να αναλάβει την εκπόνηση αυτής της έκθεσης, συζήτησα με τον ίδιο τον κ. Απορρόφηση – τον καλό μου φίλο κ. Brok. Καταλήξαμε στο συμπέρασμα ότι ο όρος «απορρόφηση» δεν είναι ίσως ο πιο ενδεδειγμένος. Νομίζω ότι ήταν πολύ εύστοχη η παρατήρηση του κ. Carl Bildt, ο οποίος είχε πει: ποιος θέλει να απορροφηθεί από την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση; Μήπως η Γαλλία επιθυμεί να απορροφηθεί από την ΕΕ; Ασφαλώς, η απάντηση είναι αρνητική. Επιλέξαμε λοιπόν έναν πιο δυναμικό, πιο θετικό όρο, και αποφασίσαμε ότι αυτό που πραγματικά μας απασχολεί είναι η «ικανότητα ένταξης».
Η δεύτερη επισήμανσή μου είναι ότι το θέμα αυτό είναι δυνητικώς ευαίσθητο διότι εμπλέκονται πολλά συμφέροντα. Ο συνάδελφος και φίλος μου κ. Brok έθιξε ορισμένα εξ αυτών. Με άλλα λόγια, υπάρχουν άνθρωποι που τάσσονται κατά της διεύρυνσης αλλά υπέρ του Συντάγματος. Υπάρχουν επίσης άτομα τα οποία, όπως εγώ, υποστηρίζουν και το Σύνταγμα και τη διεύρυνση, καθώς και άτομα όπως ο κ. Farage και οι λοιποί που τάσσονται κατά και των δύο.
Προσπαθήσαμε, λοιπόν, να ελιχθούμε ανάμεσα σε αυτές τις τέσσερις θέσεις και φρονώ ότι το επιτύχαμε σε ικανοποιητικό βαθμό σε αυτήν την έκθεση. Η έννοια της ικανότητας ένταξης δεν είναι πραγματικά καινοφανής. Την εφαρμόζαμε πάντα. Πριν από κάθε νέα διεύρυνση συζητούσαμε πάντα το πόσο πρέπει να προχωρήσει η εμβάθυνση της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Πριν από το 1973 η Ένωση μετατράπηκε σε τελωνειακή ένωση. Πριν από το 1986 προτάθηκε η Ενιαία Ευρωπαϊκή Πράξη. Πριν από την προσχώρηση της Φινλανδίας, της Αυστρίας και της Σουηδίας υπογράφηκε η Συνθήκη του Μάαστριχτ. Πριν από τη μεγάλη διεύρυνση του 2004 υπογράφηκαν οι Συνθήκες του Άμστερνταμ και της Νίκαιας. Αυτό που επιθυμούμε πριν από την επόμενη διεύρυνση είναι ένα σύνταγμα.
Τρίτον, πώς ορίζουμε την ικανότητα ένταξης; Νομίζω ότι το συμπέρασμα στο οποίο καταλήγουμε σε αυτήν την έκθεση είναι ότι μπορεί κανείς να μιλήσει πολύ αόριστα για το τι ακριβώς σημαίνει και μπορεί να υποστηρίξει ότι δεν αποτελεί προϋπόθεση για τη διεύρυνση, αλλά είναι ένα κριτήριο που αφορά εμάς, τα σημερινά κράτη μέλη. Πρώτα πρέπει να τακτοποιήσουμε τα του οίκου μας και στη συνέχεια θα μπορούμε να προχωρήσουμε σε διεύρυνση. Το πρόβλημα είναι ότι δεν μπορούμε να δώσουμε έναν αυστηρό ορισμό της ικανότητας ένταξης επειδή συνδέεται με δύο παραμέτρους. Πρώτον: με τη χρονική στιγμή της προσχώρησης. Δεύτερον: με τον αριθμό των κρατών που εντάσσονται. Με άλλα λόγια, η διεύρυνση του 1973 ήταν εντελώς διαφορετική από τη διεύρυνση του 2004. Παραμένοντας στο θέμα του ορισμού, η ικανότητα ένταξης αφορά τρία στοιχεία: τα όργανα, τον προϋπολογισμό και τις πολιτικές.
Η τέταρτη επισήμανσή μου αφορά τον δημόσιο διάλογο, και επ’ αυτού μέμφομαι το Ευρωπαϊκό Συμβούλιο, το οποίο δηλώνει ότι πρέπει να καταστήσουμε ελκυστική τη διεύρυνση στην κοινή γνώμη. Συμφωνούμε, ασφαλώς και πρέπει να επιδιώξουμε κάτι τέτοιο, αλλά δεν μπορείτε να μας λέτε ότι δεν έχετε την ευκαιρία να το πράξετε. Οι διαπραγματεύσεις για τη διεύρυνση ξεκινούν κατόπιν ομόφωνης απόφασης. Κάθε κεφάλαιο ανοίγει με ομόφωνη απόφαση, ενώ ομοφωνία απαιτείται και για το κλείσιμο κάθε επιμέρους κεφαλαίου. Το συνολικό πακέτο εγκρίνεται με ομοφωνία και, εκτός αυτού, κάθε κράτος μέλος καλείται να επικυρώσει την προσχώρηση. Εάν στο διάστημα αυτών των δύο έως δέκα ετών δεν είστε σε θέση να εξηγήσετε τα οφέλη της διεύρυνσης στην κοινή γνώμη, νομίζω ότι αποτυγχάνετε οικτρά στην εκπλήρωση των καθηκόντων σας· εκτελέστε, λοιπόν, πρώτα το καθήκον σας και μετά μπορείτε να έρχεστε εδώ και να μιλάτε για την κοινή γνώμη. Πρέπει να προσεγγίζουμε με πιο στρατηγικούς όρους το θέμα της διεύρυνσης.
Η τελευταία μου επισήμανση αφορά το Σύνταγμα. Σε αυτήν την έκθεση περιγράφονται ορισμένα θέματα τα οποία πρέπει οπωσδήποτε να διευκρινίσουμε πριν από την επόμενη διεύρυνση: ψηφοφορία με ειδική πλειοψηφία, νομική προσωπικότητα, υπουργός Εξωτερικών, κοινή πολιτική ασφάλειας κλπ. Προτού μπορέσουμε να προχωρήσουμε σε διεύρυνση, επιβάλλεται να αντιμετωπίσουμε αυτά τα θέματα. Το μήνυμα που στέλνουμε μέσω αυτής της έκθεσης είναι: ας τακτοποιήσουμε τα του οίκου μας πριν από το 2009 και μετά μπορούμε να προχωρήσουμε σε διεύρυνση.
Θα κλείσω την παρέμβασή μου με αυτό το σχόλιο. Η διεύρυνση είναι ίσως η καλύτερη πολιτική που έχει ποτέ εφαρμόσει η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Προσφέρει ειρήνη, ευημερία, ασφάλεια και σταθερότητα. Όταν συζητάμε για τη διεύρυνση δεν πρέπει να προβάλλουμε φτηνές δικαιολογίες, διότι γνωρίζουμε ότι είμαστε πάντα έτοιμοι και συγχρόνως ανέτοιμοι για κάθε διεύρυνση."@el10
".
Señor Presidente, quiero hacer cinco comentarios sobre nuestro informe relativo a la capacidad de integración. Antes de nada, quiero dar las gracias a todos los colegas que han participado en el proceso y en particular a los que trabajan en la secretaría, que han hecho un trabajo excelente.
Mi primer comentario se refiere a la terminología que estamos utilizando hoy. El término original que nos encontramos fue «capacidad de absorción». Cuando discutimos quién iba a encargarse de este informe, hablé con el propio señor Absorción, mi buen amigo el señor Brok. Llegamos a la conclusión de que posiblemente el término absorción no fuera el mejor que podía utilizarse. Creo que el señor Bild lo explicó muy bien al decir: ¿Quién quiere ser absorbido por la Unión Europea? ¿Quiere Francia ser absorbida por la Unión Europea? Por supuesto, la respuesta es no. Así que buscamos un término más dinámico, más positivo, y decidimos que «capacidad de integración» era en realidad lo que estamos buscando.
Mi segundo comentario es que posiblemente sea un tema delicado, porque hay muchos intereses en juego. Mi colega y amigo el señor Brok se ha referido a algunos de ellos. En otras palabras, algunas personas están en contra de la ampliación, pero a favor de la Constitución. Otras están en contra de la Constitución, pero a favor de la ampliación. Luego están los que, como yo, están a favor de la Constitución y a favor de la ampliación, y también los que, como el señor Farage y demás, se oponen a ambas cosas.
Lo que hemos tratado de hacer es conciliar cuatro tipos de intereses y creo que lo hemos hecho bastante bien en este informe. La noción de capacidad de integración no es, en realidad, nada nuevo. Siempre ha existido. Siempre hay un debate antes de todas y cada una de las ampliaciones sobre cuánto debe profundizarse la Unión Europea. Antes de 1973, la Unión pasó a ser una unión aduanera. Antes de 1986 se sacó adelante el Acta Única Europea. Antes de la adhesión de Finlandia, Austria y Suecia tuvimos el Tratado de Maastricht. Antes del
de 2004 tuvimos Amsterdam y Niza. Lo que queremos es tener una Constitución antes de la próxima ampliación.
Tercero, ¿como definimos la capacidad de integración? Creo que la conclusión de este informe es que se puede dar una vaga noción de lo que eso significa en realidad y se puede decir que no se trata de una condición para la ampliación, sino de un criterio para nosotros, los actuales Estados miembros. Tenemos que poner orden en nuestra casa antes de poder hacer otra ampliación. La dificultad estriba en la imposibilidad de dar una definición estricta de la capacidad de integración, porque depende de dos cosas. Una: el momento de la adhesión. Dos: el número de nuevos Estados que se incorporen. En otras palabras, la ampliación de 1973 fue radicalmente diferente de la ampliación de 2004. Pero en teoría, la capacidad de integración se refiere a tres cosas: instituciones, presupuesto y políticas.
Mi cuarto comentario se refiere al debate público y aquí quiero señalar con el dedo al Consejo Europeo, que está diciendo que tenemos que vincular la ampliación a la opinión pública. Nosotros creemos que sí, que por supuesto hay que hacer eso, pero no me digan que no han tenido ya la oportunidad de hacerlo. Las negociaciones de la ampliación se inician cuando existe unanimidad. Cada capítulo se abre por unanimidad. Cada capítulo se cierra por unanimidad. Todo el paquete se aprueba por unanimidad, y además se supone que cada Estado miembro ratifica la adhesión. Si en el plazo de dos a diez años ustedes no son capaces de explicar los beneficios de la ampliación al público general, creo que están fallando estrepitosamente en su trabajo, así que por favor, hagan bien su trabajo antes de venir y empezar a hablar de opinión pública. Tenemos que reflexionar más estratégicamente sobre la ampliación.
Mi último comentario se refiere a la Constitución. Este informe plantea una serie de cuestiones que necesitamos aclarar urgentemente antes de la siguiente ampliación: votación por mayoría cualificada, personalidad jurídica, Ministro de Asuntos Exteriores, política de seguridad común, etc. Todas ellas son cuestiones que tenemos que abordar necesariamente antes de una ampliación. El mensaje contenido en este informe es el siguiente: pongamos orden en casa antes de 2009 y luego iniciemos la ampliación.
Terminaré con esto. La ampliación es probablemente la mejor política que la Unión Europea ha tenido jamás. Ha traído consigo paz, prosperidad, seguridad y estabilidad. Cuando hablemos de ampliación, no pongamos excusas baratas, porque sabemos que, nunca pero siempre, estamos preparados para realizar una ampliación."@es20
"Mr President, I would like to make five points about our report on integration capacity. I will start by thanking all those colleagues involved in the process and certainly those in the secretariat who did a wonderful job.
My first point is about the terminology we are using today. The original term which we dealt with was ‘absorption capacity’. When we were discussing who was going to do this report, I talked to Mr Absorption himself – my good friend Mr Brok. We came to the conclusion that perhaps absorption is not the best term to use. I think Carl Bildt put it very well when he said: who wants to be absorbed by the European Union? Does France want to be absorbed by the European Union? Of course the answer is no. So we went for a more dynamic, more positive term and decided that ‘integration capacity’ is really what we are looking at.
My second point is that this is potentially a sensitive subject because there are many interests. My colleague and friend Mr Brok made reference to some of them. In other words you have those types of people who are against enlargement but for the Constitution. You have those who are against the Constitution but for enlargement. Then you have those like me who are for the Constitution and for enlargement, and then there are the likes of Mr Farage and the rest who are against both.
What we tried to do was swim through these four types of interest and I think we have done it fairly well in this report. The notion of integration capacity is nothing really new. We have always had it. There is always a debate before each and every enlargement about how much the European Union should deepen. Before 1973 the Union became a customs union. Before 1986 the Single European Act was put forward. Before the Finnish-Austrian-Swedish accession you had the Maastricht Treaty. Before the big bang in 2004 you had Amsterdam and Nice. What we want is to have a constitution before the next enlargement.
Thirdly, how do we define integration capacity? I think the conclusion of this report is that you can give a vague notion of what it actually means and you could say that it is not a condition for enlargement, but it is a criterion for us, the current Member States. We have to put our house in order before we are able to enlarge. The difficulty is that you cannot give integration capacity a strict definition because it is linked to two things. One: the time of accession. Two: the number of new states coming in. In other words, enlargement in 1973 was radically different to enlargement in 2004. Still on the definition, integration capacity is about three things: institutions, budget and policies.
My fourth point is about the public debate, and here I would like to point the finger at the European Council, which is saying that we need to link enlargement to public opinion. We say yes, of course you have to do that, but do not tell me that you do not have the opportunity to do it. Enlargement negotiations are opened through unanimity. Each chapter is opened with unanimity. Each chapter is closed with unanimity. The whole package is approved by unanimity, and on top of that each Member State is supposed to ratify accession. If within those two to ten years you are not able to explain the benefits of enlargement to the general public I think you are miserably failing in your job, so please do your job and then come and start talking about public opinion. We need more strategic thinking on enlargement.
My final point is about the Constitution. This report outlines a number of issues which we desperately need to clarify before the next enlargement: qualified majority voting, legal personality, the foreign minister, common security policy, etc. These are issues that we badly need to deal with before we can enlarge. The message from this report is: let us get that house in order before 2009 and then start enlarging.
I shall finish with this. Enlargement is probably the best policy the European Union has ever had. It has brought with it peace, prosperity, security and stability. When we talk about enlargement let us not give poor excuses because we know that we are never and yet always ready to enlarge."@et5
".
Arvoisa puhemies, esitän viisi huomautusta integrointivalmiuksia käsittelevästä mietinnöstäni. Kiitän ensin kaikkia prosessiin osallistuneita kollegojani ja erityisesti sihteeristön henkilökuntaa, joka teki erinomaista työtä.
Ensimmäinen huomautukseni koskee terminologiaa, jota käytämme tänään. Alun perin käytössä oli termi "vastaanottovalmius". Miettiessämme tämän mietinnön esittelijää puhuin itse "vastaanottohenkilön", hyvän ystäväni jäsen Brokin kanssa. Päädyimme siihen, ettei vastaanotto [absorption eli imeytyminen] liene paras termi käytettäväksi tässä yhteydessä. Ulkoministeri Carl Bildt esitti mielestäni osuvan huomion: Kuka haluaa Euroopan unionin vastaanottamaksi? Haluaako Ranska Euroopan unionin vastaanottamaksi? Vastaus on luonnollisesti ei. Päädyimme siksi dynaamisempaan ja myönteisempään termiin ja totesimme, että hakemamme termi oli "integraatiovalmius".
Toinen huomautukseni koskee mahdollisesti tunteita herättävää asiaa, kun otetaan huomioon, että täällä on monia etuja edustettuina. Kollegani ja ystäväni Brok viittasi joihinkin heistä. Toisin sanoen jotkut ihmiset ovat laajentumista vastaan mutta kannattavat perustuslakia, toiset taas vastustavat perustuslakia mutta kannattavat laajentumista. Sitten on myös niitä, kuten minä, jotka kannattavat sekä perustuslakia että laajentumista, ja muita, kuten jäsen Farage kumppaneineen, jotka vastustavat niitä molempia.
Yritimme luovia kaikkien näiden etujen mukaisesti ja olemme uskoakseni onnistuneet siinä melko hyvin tässä mietinnössä. Integraatiovalmiuden käsite ei ole mikään uusi asia. Se on aina ollut olemassa. Jokaista laajentumista on edeltänyt keskustelu siitä, kuinka paljon Euroopan unionin olisi syvennyttävä. Ennen vuotta 1973 yhteisöstä tuli tulliunioni. Ennen vuotta 1986 esiteltiin Euroopan yhtenäisasiakirja. Ennen Suomen, Itävallan ja Ruotsin liittymistä oli Maastrichtin sopimus. Ennen vuoden 2004 suurta laajentumispyrähdystä olivat Amsterdamin ja Nizzan sopimukset. Haluamme perustuslain ennen uutta laajentumista.
Kolmas huomautukseni koskee integraatiovalmiuden määritelmää. Mietinnön johtopäätös on mielestäni se, että integraatiovalmius voidaan määritellä epämääräisesti ja väittää, ettei se ole laajentumisen edellytys. Meille, nykyisille jäsenvaltioille, se kuitenkin on laajentumisen edellytys. Meidän on saatava sisäiset asiamme järjestykseen, ennen kuin voimme laajentua. Ongelmana on se, ettei integraatiovalmiutta voida määritellä tiukasti, koska se liittyy kahteen asiaan: ensinnäkin liittymisajankohtaan ja toiseksi uusien jäsenvaltioiden lukumäärään. Toisin sanoen vuoden 1973 laajentuminen oli täysin erilainen kuin vuoden 2004 laajentuminen. Integraatiovalmiuden määritelmä käsittää kuitenkin kolme seikkaa: toimielimet, talousarvion ja politiikan.
Neljäs huomautukseni koskee julkista keskustelua, ja haluan tässä yhteydessä osoittaa sormellani Eurooppa-neuvostoa, joka vaatii meitä sovittamaan laajentumisen ja julkisen mielipiteen yhteen. Vastaamme, että kyllä, niin on ehdottomasti tehtävä, mutta Eurooppa-neuvoston on turha väittää, ettei sillä olisi mahdollisuutta tehdä sitä. Laajentumisneuvottelut avataan yksimielisellä päätöksellä. Jokaisen neuvotteluluvun avaamiseen tarvitaan yksimielinen päätös. Koko paketti hyväksytään yksimielisesti, ja kaiken lisäksi kunkin jäsenvaltion on tarkoitus ratifioida liittymiset. Ellei Eurooppa-neuvosto ole kyennyt tähän prosessiin kuluvien 2–10 vuoden aikana selittämään laajentumisen etuja kansalaisille, se on mielestäni epäonnistunut surkeasti tehtävässään. Pyydänkin sitä hoitamaan tehtävänsä ja avautumaan vasta sitten meille julkisesta mielipiteestä. Laajentuminen edellyttää aiempaa strategisempaa ajattelua.
Viimeinen huomautukseni koskee perustuslakia. Tässä mietinnössä luetellaan monia asioita, joita on väistämättä selkiytettävä ennen seuraavaa laajentumista: määräenemmistöpäätökset, oikeushenkilöllisyys, ulkoministeri, yhteinen turvallisuuspolitiikka ja niin edelleen. Nämä kysymykset vaativat kipeästi ratkaisua ennen laajentumista. Tämän mietinnön sanoma on: hoitakaamme sisäiset asiat kuntoon ennen vuotta 2009, jolloin voimme taas laajentua.
Lopetan puheenvuoroni tähän. Laajentuminen on luultavasti parasta politiikkaa, jota Euroopan unioni on koskaan harjoittanut. Se on tuonut mukanaan rauhaa, vaurautta, turvallisuutta ja vakautta. Laajentumisesta puhuttaessa ei pidä sortua huonoihin tekosyihin, koska selvää on, että yhtäältä emme ole koskaan ja toisaalta olemme aina valmiit laajentumaan."@fi7
".
Monsieur le Président, je voudrais soulever cinq points concernant notre rapport sur la capacité d’intégration. Je commencerai par remercier tous mes collègues qui ont participé à ce rapport, et en particulier le Secrétariat, qui a fait un excellent travail.
Mon premier point concerne la terminologie que nous utilisons aujourd’hui. À l’origine, le terme que nous avons utilisé était «capacité d’absorption». Au moment de choisir qui d’entre nous allait faire ce rapport, j’ai parlé à M. Absorption lui-même - mon grand ami M. Brok. Nous sommes arrivés à la conclusion que, peut-être, le terme absorption n’était pas le plus approprié. Je pense que M. Carl Bildt l’a parfaitement exprimé en disant: qui veut être absorbé par l’Union européenne? La France veut-elle être absorbée par l’Union européenne? Bien sûr, la réponse est non. Nous avons donc cherché un terme plus dynamique, plus positif et avons décidé que la «capacité d’intégration» était ce que nous examinions réellement.
Je dirais, en guise de second commentaire, qu’il s’agit d’un sujet potentiellement sensible, car il y a plusieurs intérêts en jeu. Mon collègue et ami, M. Brok, a fait référence à certains d’entre eux. En d’autres termes, il existe des personnes qui sont contre l’élargissement, mais qui sont favorables à la Constitution. Vous avez ceux qui sont contre la Constitution, mais qui sont pour l’élargissement. Vous avez ensuite ceux qui, comme moi, sont pour la Constitution et pour l’élargissement et, enfin, ceux qui, à l’instar de M. Farage et des autres, s’opposent aux deux.
Ce que nous nous sommes efforcés de faire, c’est de nous frayer un chemin parmi ces quatre points de vue divergents, et je pense que nous y sommes assez bien arrivés dans ce rapport. La notion de capacité d’intégration n’a rien de nouveau. Elle a toujours existé. Il y a toujours un débat avant chaque élargissement sur la taille que doit avoir l’Union européenne. Avant 1973, l’Union est devenue une union douanière. Avant 1986, l’Acte unique européen a été proclamé. Avant l’adhésion de la Finlande, de l’Autriche et de la Suède, il y a eu le traité de Maastricht. Avant le big-bang de 2004, il y a eu Amsterdam et Nice. Ce que nous voulons, c’est avoir une Constitution avant le prochain élargissement.
Troisièmement, comment définissons-nous la capacité d’intégration? Je pense que la conclusion de ce rapport est que l’on peut donner une vague notion de ce que cela signifie réellement et que l’on pourrait dire que ce n’est pas une condition pour l’élargissement, mais c’est un critère pour nous, les États membres actuels. Nous devons mettre de l’ordre chez nous avant de pouvoir nous élargir. La difficulté est qu’on ne peut pas donner de définition stricte à la capacité d’intégration parce qu’elle est liée à deux choses. La première: le moment de l’adhésion. La deuxième: le nombre de nouveaux États adhérents. En d’autres termes, l’élargissement de 1973 était radicalement différent de l’élargissement de 2004. Sur la définition encore, la capacité d’intégration se rapporte à trois choses: les institutions, le budget et les politiques.
Mon quatrième point concerne le débat public, et je voudrais ici pointer du doigt le Conseil européen, qui dit que nous devons lier l’élargissement à l’opinion publique. Nous répondons que, bien sûr, il faut le faire, mais ne me dites pas que vous n’avez pas l’occasion de le faire. Les négociations sur l’élargissement sont ouvertes à l’unanimité. Chaque chapitre est ouvert à l’unanimité. Chaque chapitre est fermé à l’unanimité. Le paquet entier est approuvé à l’unanimité et, en plus de cela, chaque État membre est censé ratifier l’adhésion. Si dans cette période de deux à dix ans vous n’êtes pas capables d’expliquer les avantages de l’élargissement au grand public, je pense que vous échouez lamentablement dans votre travail, alors s’il vous plaît, faites votre travail et ensuite venez discuter de l’opinion publique. Nous devons penser à l’élargissement de façon plus stratégique.
Mon dernier point concerne la Constitution. Ce rapport souligne un certain nombre de sujets que nous devons absolument clarifier avant le prochain élargissement: le vote à la majorité qualifiée, la personnalité juridique, le ministre des affaires étrangères, la politique de sécurité commune, etc. Nous devons absolument nous occuper de ces sujets avant de pouvoir nous élargir. Le message de ce rapport est le suivant: mettons de l’ordre chez nous avant 2009, et ensuite commençons l’élargissement.
Je conclurai ainsi. L’élargissement est probablement la meilleure politique que l’Union européenne ait jamais eue. Il a apporté paix, prospérité, sécurité et stabilité. Quand nous parlons de l’élargissement ne nous donnons pas de mauvaises excuses parce que nous savons que nous ne sommes jamais vraiment prêts pour l’élargissement."@fr8
"Mr President, I would like to make five points about our report on integration capacity. I will start by thanking all those colleagues involved in the process and certainly those in the secretariat who did a wonderful job.
My first point is about the terminology we are using today. The original term which we dealt with was ‘absorption capacity’. When we were discussing who was going to do this report, I talked to Mr Absorption himself – my good friend Mr Brok. We came to the conclusion that perhaps absorption is not the best term to use. I think Carl Bildt put it very well when he said: who wants to be absorbed by the European Union? Does France want to be absorbed by the European Union? Of course the answer is no. So we went for a more dynamic, more positive term and decided that ‘integration capacity’ is really what we are looking at.
My second point is that this is potentially a sensitive subject because there are many interests. My colleague and friend Mr Brok made reference to some of them. In other words you have those types of people who are against enlargement but for the Constitution. You have those who are against the Constitution but for enlargement. Then you have those like me who are for the Constitution and for enlargement, and then there are the likes of Mr Farage and the rest who are against both.
What we tried to do was swim through these four types of interest and I think we have done it fairly well in this report. The notion of integration capacity is nothing really new. We have always had it. There is always a debate before each and every enlargement about how much the European Union should deepen. Before 1973 the Union became a customs union. Before 1986 the Single European Act was put forward. Before the Finnish-Austrian-Swedish accession you had the Maastricht Treaty. Before the big bang in 2004 you had Amsterdam and Nice. What we want is to have a constitution before the next enlargement.
Thirdly, how do we define integration capacity? I think the conclusion of this report is that you can give a vague notion of what it actually means and you could say that it is not a condition for enlargement, but it is a criterion for us, the current Member States. We have to put our house in order before we are able to enlarge. The difficulty is that you cannot give integration capacity a strict definition because it is linked to two things. One: the time of accession. Two: the number of new states coming in. In other words, enlargement in 1973 was radically different to enlargement in 2004. Still on the definition, integration capacity is about three things: institutions, budget and policies.
My fourth point is about the public debate, and here I would like to point the finger at the European Council, which is saying that we need to link enlargement to public opinion. We say yes, of course you have to do that, but do not tell me that you do not have the opportunity to do it. Enlargement negotiations are opened through unanimity. Each chapter is opened with unanimity. Each chapter is closed with unanimity. The whole package is approved by unanimity, and on top of that each Member State is supposed to ratify accession. If within those two to ten years you are not able to explain the benefits of enlargement to the general public I think you are miserably failing in your job, so please do your job and then come and start talking about public opinion. We need more strategic thinking on enlargement.
My final point is about the Constitution. This report outlines a number of issues which we desperately need to clarify before the next enlargement: qualified majority voting, legal personality, the foreign minister, common security policy, etc. These are issues that we badly need to deal with before we can enlarge. The message from this report is: let us get that house in order before 2009 and then start enlarging.
I shall finish with this. Enlargement is probably the best policy the European Union has ever had. It has brought with it peace, prosperity, security and stability. When we talk about enlargement let us not give poor excuses because we know that we are never and yet always ready to enlarge."@hu11
".
Signor Presidente, vorrei fare cinque osservazioni riguardo alla nostra relazione sulla capacità di integrazione. Comincerò ringraziando tutti i colleghi che hanno preso parte alla procedura e senza dubbio il personale del segretariato, che ha svolto un magnifico lavoro.
La mia prima osservazione riguarda la terminologia che usiamo oggi. I termini originali in cui abbiamo affrontato la questione erano “capacità di assorbimento”. Quando valutavamo chi avrebbe dovuto preparare la relazione, ho parlato con il signor Assorbimento in persona: il mio buon amico onorevole Brok. Siamo giunti alla conclusione che assorbimento forse non era il termine migliore da utilizzare. Penso che Karl Bildt abbia espresso molto bene il concetto quando ha chiesto: chi vuole essere assorbito dall’Unione europea? La Francia vuole essere assorbita dall’Unione europea? Naturalmente la risposta è no. Abbiamo quindi scelto un’espressione più dinamica, più positiva, e deciso che la “capacità di integrazione” è effettivamente ciò che stiamo esaminando.
La mia seconda osservazione è che si tratta di un argomento potenzialmente delicato, perché gli interessi in gioco sono molti. L’amico e collega onorevole Brok, ne ha indicati alcuni. In altre parole, vi sono persone contrarie all’allargamento ma favorevoli alla Costituzione, persone contrarie alla Costituzione ma favorevoli all’allargamento, persone come me che sono favorevoli alla Costituzione e all’allargamento, e poi vi sono persone come l’onorevole Farage e altri che sono contrari a entrambi.
Abbiamo cercato di procedere tenendo conto di questi quattro tipi di interessi e penso che siamo riusciti a farlo abbastanza bene in questa relazione. Il concetto di capacità di integrazione in realtà non è nuovo. E’ sempre stato presente. Si è sempre svolto un dibattito, prima di ogni allargamento, su quanto si sarebbe dovuta approfondire l’Unione europea. Prima del 1973 l’Unione è diventata un’unione doganale. Prima del 1986 è stato presentato l’Atto unico europeo. Prima dell’adesione finlandese, austriaca e svedese avevamo il Trattato di Maastricht. Prima del
del 2004 avevamo i Trattati di Amsterdam e di Nizza. Ciò che vogliamo è una Costituzione prima del prossimo allargamento.
In terzo luogo, come definiamo la capacità di integrazione? Penso che la conclusione di questa relazione sia che si può fornire una vaga idea di che cosa significhi realmente e si può dire che non costituisce una condizione per l’allargamento, ma un criterio per noi, gli Stati membri attuali. Dobbiamo fare ordine in casa nostra prima di poterci allargare. Il problema è che non si può fornire una definizione rigorosa di capacità di integrazione, perché è legata a due aspetti. Uno è il momento dell’adesione e l’altro è il numero di nuovi Stati aderenti. In altre parole, l’allargamento del 1973 è stato radicalmente diverso da quello del 2004. Sempre riguardo alla definizione, la capacità di integrazione si compone di tre elementi: Istituzioni, bilancio e politiche.
La mia quarta osservazione riguarda il dibattito pubblico, e qui vorrei puntare il dito contro il Consiglio europeo, il quale afferma che bisogna collegare l’allargamento all’opinione pubblica. Sì, certo che bisogna farlo, ma non dite di non averne la possibilità. I negoziati sull’allargamento si aprono con decisione unanime. Ogni capitolo è aperto con decisione unanime. Ogni capitolo è chiuso con decisione unanime. L’intero pacchetto è approvato con decisione unanime; in più, ogni Stato membro è tenuto a ratificare l’adesione. Se entro questo periodo, che va da due a dieci anni, non siete in grado di spiegare ai cittadini i vantaggi dell’allargamento, penso stiate miseramente fallendo nei vostri intenti; quindi vi invito a svolgere il vostro lavoro e poi tornare a parlare di opinione pubblica. Bisogna ragionare in modo più strategico sull’allargamento.
La mia ultima osservazione riguarda la Costituzione. La relazione elenca alcune questioni che dobbiamo assolutamente chiarire prima del prossimo allargamento: voto a maggioranza qualificata, personalità giuridica, ministro degli Affari esteri, politica di sicurezza comune, eccetera. Sono questioni che dobbiamo assolutamente affrontare prima di poter procedere a un nuovo allargamento. Il messaggio della relazione è: mettiamo la casa in ordine entro il 2009 e poi cominciamo ad allargarci.
Concludo dicendo questo: l’allargamento probabilmente è la migliore politica che l’Unione europea abbia mai avuto. Ha portato pace, prosperità, sicurezza e stabilità. Quando parliamo di allargamento, evitiamo di trovare scuse meschine, perché sappiamo benissimo che non siamo mai pronti e, contemporaneamente, che siamo sempre pronti ad allargare l’Europa."@it12
"Mr President, I would like to make five points about our report on integration capacity. I will start by thanking all those colleagues involved in the process and certainly those in the secretariat who did a wonderful job.
My first point is about the terminology we are using today. The original term which we dealt with was ‘absorption capacity’. When we were discussing who was going to do this report, I talked to Mr Absorption himself – my good friend Mr Brok. We came to the conclusion that perhaps absorption is not the best term to use. I think Carl Bildt put it very well when he said: who wants to be absorbed by the European Union? Does France want to be absorbed by the European Union? Of course the answer is no. So we went for a more dynamic, more positive term and decided that ‘integration capacity’ is really what we are looking at.
My second point is that this is potentially a sensitive subject because there are many interests. My colleague and friend Mr Brok made reference to some of them. In other words you have those types of people who are against enlargement but for the Constitution. You have those who are against the Constitution but for enlargement. Then you have those like me who are for the Constitution and for enlargement, and then there are the likes of Mr Farage and the rest who are against both.
What we tried to do was swim through these four types of interest and I think we have done it fairly well in this report. The notion of integration capacity is nothing really new. We have always had it. There is always a debate before each and every enlargement about how much the European Union should deepen. Before 1973 the Union became a customs union. Before 1986 the Single European Act was put forward. Before the Finnish-Austrian-Swedish accession you had the Maastricht Treaty. Before the big bang in 2004 you had Amsterdam and Nice. What we want is to have a constitution before the next enlargement.
Thirdly, how do we define integration capacity? I think the conclusion of this report is that you can give a vague notion of what it actually means and you could say that it is not a condition for enlargement, but it is a criterion for us, the current Member States. We have to put our house in order before we are able to enlarge. The difficulty is that you cannot give integration capacity a strict definition because it is linked to two things. One: the time of accession. Two: the number of new states coming in. In other words, enlargement in 1973 was radically different to enlargement in 2004. Still on the definition, integration capacity is about three things: institutions, budget and policies.
My fourth point is about the public debate, and here I would like to point the finger at the European Council, which is saying that we need to link enlargement to public opinion. We say yes, of course you have to do that, but do not tell me that you do not have the opportunity to do it. Enlargement negotiations are opened through unanimity. Each chapter is opened with unanimity. Each chapter is closed with unanimity. The whole package is approved by unanimity, and on top of that each Member State is supposed to ratify accession. If within those two to ten years you are not able to explain the benefits of enlargement to the general public I think you are miserably failing in your job, so please do your job and then come and start talking about public opinion. We need more strategic thinking on enlargement.
My final point is about the Constitution. This report outlines a number of issues which we desperately need to clarify before the next enlargement: qualified majority voting, legal personality, the foreign minister, common security policy, etc. These are issues that we badly need to deal with before we can enlarge. The message from this report is: let us get that house in order before 2009 and then start enlarging.
I shall finish with this. Enlargement is probably the best policy the European Union has ever had. It has brought with it peace, prosperity, security and stability. When we talk about enlargement let us not give poor excuses because we know that we are never and yet always ready to enlarge."@lt14
"Mr President, I would like to make five points about our report on integration capacity. I will start by thanking all those colleagues involved in the process and certainly those in the secretariat who did a wonderful job.
My first point is about the terminology we are using today. The original term which we dealt with was ‘absorption capacity’. When we were discussing who was going to do this report, I talked to Mr Absorption himself – my good friend Mr Brok. We came to the conclusion that perhaps absorption is not the best term to use. I think Carl Bildt put it very well when he said: who wants to be absorbed by the European Union? Does France want to be absorbed by the European Union? Of course the answer is no. So we went for a more dynamic, more positive term and decided that ‘integration capacity’ is really what we are looking at.
My second point is that this is potentially a sensitive subject because there are many interests. My colleague and friend Mr Brok made reference to some of them. In other words you have those types of people who are against enlargement but for the Constitution. You have those who are against the Constitution but for enlargement. Then you have those like me who are for the Constitution and for enlargement, and then there are the likes of Mr Farage and the rest who are against both.
What we tried to do was swim through these four types of interest and I think we have done it fairly well in this report. The notion of integration capacity is nothing really new. We have always had it. There is always a debate before each and every enlargement about how much the European Union should deepen. Before 1973 the Union became a customs union. Before 1986 the Single European Act was put forward. Before the Finnish-Austrian-Swedish accession you had the Maastricht Treaty. Before the big bang in 2004 you had Amsterdam and Nice. What we want is to have a constitution before the next enlargement.
Thirdly, how do we define integration capacity? I think the conclusion of this report is that you can give a vague notion of what it actually means and you could say that it is not a condition for enlargement, but it is a criterion for us, the current Member States. We have to put our house in order before we are able to enlarge. The difficulty is that you cannot give integration capacity a strict definition because it is linked to two things. One: the time of accession. Two: the number of new states coming in. In other words, enlargement in 1973 was radically different to enlargement in 2004. Still on the definition, integration capacity is about three things: institutions, budget and policies.
My fourth point is about the public debate, and here I would like to point the finger at the European Council, which is saying that we need to link enlargement to public opinion. We say yes, of course you have to do that, but do not tell me that you do not have the opportunity to do it. Enlargement negotiations are opened through unanimity. Each chapter is opened with unanimity. Each chapter is closed with unanimity. The whole package is approved by unanimity, and on top of that each Member State is supposed to ratify accession. If within those two to ten years you are not able to explain the benefits of enlargement to the general public I think you are miserably failing in your job, so please do your job and then come and start talking about public opinion. We need more strategic thinking on enlargement.
My final point is about the Constitution. This report outlines a number of issues which we desperately need to clarify before the next enlargement: qualified majority voting, legal personality, the foreign minister, common security policy, etc. These are issues that we badly need to deal with before we can enlarge. The message from this report is: let us get that house in order before 2009 and then start enlarging.
I shall finish with this. Enlargement is probably the best policy the European Union has ever had. It has brought with it peace, prosperity, security and stability. When we talk about enlargement let us not give poor excuses because we know that we are never and yet always ready to enlarge."@lv13
"Mr President, I would like to make five points about our report on integration capacity. I will start by thanking all those colleagues involved in the process and certainly those in the secretariat who did a wonderful job.
My first point is about the terminology we are using today. The original term which we dealt with was ‘absorption capacity’. When we were discussing who was going to do this report, I talked to Mr Absorption himself – my good friend Mr Brok. We came to the conclusion that perhaps absorption is not the best term to use. I think Carl Bildt put it very well when he said: who wants to be absorbed by the European Union? Does France want to be absorbed by the European Union? Of course the answer is no. So we went for a more dynamic, more positive term and decided that ‘integration capacity’ is really what we are looking at.
My second point is that this is potentially a sensitive subject because there are many interests. My colleague and friend Mr Brok made reference to some of them. In other words you have those types of people who are against enlargement but for the Constitution. You have those who are against the Constitution but for enlargement. Then you have those like me who are for the Constitution and for enlargement, and then there are the likes of Mr Farage and the rest who are against both.
What we tried to do was swim through these four types of interest and I think we have done it fairly well in this report. The notion of integration capacity is nothing really new. We have always had it. There is always a debate before each and every enlargement about how much the European Union should deepen. Before 1973 the Union became a customs union. Before 1986 the Single European Act was put forward. Before the Finnish-Austrian-Swedish accession you had the Maastricht Treaty. Before the big bang in 2004 you had Amsterdam and Nice. What we want is to have a constitution before the next enlargement.
Thirdly, how do we define integration capacity? I think the conclusion of this report is that you can give a vague notion of what it actually means and you could say that it is not a condition for enlargement, but it is a criterion for us, the current Member States. We have to put our house in order before we are able to enlarge. The difficulty is that you cannot give integration capacity a strict definition because it is linked to two things. One: the time of accession. Two: the number of new states coming in. In other words, enlargement in 1973 was radically different to enlargement in 2004. Still on the definition, integration capacity is about three things: institutions, budget and policies.
My fourth point is about the public debate, and here I would like to point the finger at the European Council, which is saying that we need to link enlargement to public opinion. We say yes, of course you have to do that, but do not tell me that you do not have the opportunity to do it. Enlargement negotiations are opened through unanimity. Each chapter is opened with unanimity. Each chapter is closed with unanimity. The whole package is approved by unanimity, and on top of that each Member State is supposed to ratify accession. If within those two to ten years you are not able to explain the benefits of enlargement to the general public I think you are miserably failing in your job, so please do your job and then come and start talking about public opinion. We need more strategic thinking on enlargement.
My final point is about the Constitution. This report outlines a number of issues which we desperately need to clarify before the next enlargement: qualified majority voting, legal personality, the foreign minister, common security policy, etc. These are issues that we badly need to deal with before we can enlarge. The message from this report is: let us get that house in order before 2009 and then start enlarging.
I shall finish with this. Enlargement is probably the best policy the European Union has ever had. It has brought with it peace, prosperity, security and stability. When we talk about enlargement let us not give poor excuses because we know that we are never and yet always ready to enlarge."@mt15
".
Mijnheer de Voorzitter, ik zou graag vijf punten met betrekking tot ons verslag over het integratievermogen ter sprake willen brengen. Om te beginnen wil ik alle collega's bedanken die betrokken zijn geweest bij het proces, met name de collega's van het secretariaat, die fantastisch werk hebben verricht.
Mijn eerste punt heeft betrekking op de terminologie die we vandaag gebruiken. De oorspronkelijke term waarmee we te maken hadden was 'opnamecapaciteit'. Toen we bespraken wie dit verslag zou opstellen, had ik een gesprek met de verpersoonlijking van het begrip 'opname': mijn goede vriend de heer Brok. Wij kwamen tot de conclusie dat opname in de zin van absorptie mogelijk niet de beste term was om te gebruiken. Ik denk dat de heer Carl Bildt het zeer goed verwoordde toen hij zich afvroeg wie er door de Europese Unie wilde worden opgenomen. Wil Frankrijk door de Europese Unie worden opgenomen? Het antwoord is natuurlijk nee. Daarom gingen wij op zoek naar een meer dynamische, positievere term en kwamen tot het besluit dat 'integratievermogen' datgene is waar we daadwerkelijk mee te maken hebben.
Mijn tweede punt is dat dit mogelijk een gevoelig onderwerp is, aangezien er veel verschillende belangen zijn. Mijn collega en vriend de heer Brok heeft reeds enkele van deze belangen genoemd. Er zijn, met andere woorden, mensen die tegen uitbreiding zijn maar voor de Grondwet. Er zijn mensen die tegen de Grondwet zijn maar voor uitbreiding. Dan zijn er nog mensen als ik, die voor de Grondwet en voor uitbreiding zijn, en tot slot zijn er nog mensen als de heer Farage en de rest, die tegen beide zijn.
Wij hebben geprobeerd om rekening te houden met deze vier verschillende soorten belangen, en ik denk dat we daar in dit verslag redelijk goed in zijn geslaagd. Het idee van het integratievermogen is eigenlijk niets nieuws: dat hebben we altijd al gekend. Elke uitbreiding werd voorafgegaan door een debat over de mate waarin de Europese Unie zou moeten verdiepen. Voor 1973 werd de Unie een douane-unie. Voor 1986 werd de Europese Akte voorgesteld. Voor de toetreding van Finland, Oostenrijk en Zweden was er het Verdrag van Maastricht. Voor de grote uitbreiding van 2004 waren er Amsterdam en Nice. Nu willen we graag een grondwet hebben voordat de volgende uitbreiding zich aandient.
Derde punt: hoe definiëren we integratievermogen? Ik denk dat de conclusie van dit verslag is dat men een vaag idee kan geven van wat dit daadwerkelijk betekent, en dat men zou kunnen stellen dat het geen voorwaarde voor uitbreiding is, maar een voorwaarde voor ons, de huidige lidstaten. We moeten ons eigen huis op orde brengen, voordat we het kunnen uitbreiden. Het probleem is dat er geen strikte definitie kan worden gegeven van integratievermogen, aangezien dit verband houdt met twee zaken. Eén: het moment van toetreding. Twee: het aantal nieuwe landen dat toetreedt. De uitbreiding van 1973 was met andere woorden totaal anders dan de uitbreiding van 2004. Wat betreft de definitie gaat het bij het integratievermogen verder om drie zaken: instellingen, begrotingen en beleidsplannen.
Mijn vierde punt heeft betrekking op het publieke debat, en hier zou ik graag met een beschuldigende vinger willen wijzen naar de Europese Raad, die zegt dat we uitbreiding moeten koppelen aan de publieke opinie. Wij zeggen: ja, natuurlijk moet je dat doen, maar vertel me nu niet dat je hiervoor niet de gelegenheid hebt. Toetredingsonderhandelingen worden met een unaniem besluit geopend. Elk hoofdstuk wordt met een unaniem besluit geopend en elk hoofdstuk wordt met een unaniem besluit afgesloten. Het hele pakket wordt unaniem goedgekeurd en bovendien moet elke lidstaat de toetreding nog eens ratificeren. Als je binnen die periode van twee tot tien jaar de voordelen van de uitbreiding niet hebt kunnen uitleggen aan het grote publiek, dan denk ik dat je zwaar hebt gefaald in je werk, dus doe asjeblieft je werk en kom dan nog eens terug om te praten over de publieke opinie. We moeten strategischer nadenken over uitbreiding.
Mijn laatste punt heeft betrekking op de Grondwet. In dit verslag wordt een overzicht gegeven van een aantal kwesties waarvoor een zeer grote behoefte aan verduidelijking bestaat vóór de volgende uitbreiding: stemming met gekwalificeerde meerderheid, rechtspersoonlijkheid, minister van Buitenlandse Zaken, gemeenschappelijk veiligheidsbeleid, enzovoorts. Dit zijn kwesties die we dringend moeten aanpakken voordat we verder kunnen uitbreiden. De boodschap van dit verslag is: laten we dat huis op orde brengen vóór 2009 en daarna beginnen met uitbreiden.
Ik wil graag afsluiten met het volgende: uitbreiding is waarschijnlijk het beste beleid dat de Europese Unie ooit heeft gehad. Het heeft vrede, welvaart, veiligheid en stabiliteit met zich meegebracht. Laten ons niet komen met zwakke excuses wanneer we praten over uitbreiding, omdat we immers weten dat we nooit en toch altijd klaar zijn om uit te breiden."@nl3
"Mr President, I would like to make five points about our report on integration capacity. I will start by thanking all those colleagues involved in the process and certainly those in the secretariat who did a wonderful job.
My first point is about the terminology we are using today. The original term which we dealt with was ‘absorption capacity’. When we were discussing who was going to do this report, I talked to Mr Absorption himself – my good friend Mr Brok. We came to the conclusion that perhaps absorption is not the best term to use. I think Carl Bildt put it very well when he said: who wants to be absorbed by the European Union? Does France want to be absorbed by the European Union? Of course the answer is no. So we went for a more dynamic, more positive term and decided that ‘integration capacity’ is really what we are looking at.
My second point is that this is potentially a sensitive subject because there are many interests. My colleague and friend Mr Brok made reference to some of them. In other words you have those types of people who are against enlargement but for the Constitution. You have those who are against the Constitution but for enlargement. Then you have those like me who are for the Constitution and for enlargement, and then there are the likes of Mr Farage and the rest who are against both.
What we tried to do was swim through these four types of interest and I think we have done it fairly well in this report. The notion of integration capacity is nothing really new. We have always had it. There is always a debate before each and every enlargement about how much the European Union should deepen. Before 1973 the Union became a customs union. Before 1986 the Single European Act was put forward. Before the Finnish-Austrian-Swedish accession you had the Maastricht Treaty. Before the big bang in 2004 you had Amsterdam and Nice. What we want is to have a constitution before the next enlargement.
Thirdly, how do we define integration capacity? I think the conclusion of this report is that you can give a vague notion of what it actually means and you could say that it is not a condition for enlargement, but it is a criterion for us, the current Member States. We have to put our house in order before we are able to enlarge. The difficulty is that you cannot give integration capacity a strict definition because it is linked to two things. One: the time of accession. Two: the number of new states coming in. In other words, enlargement in 1973 was radically different to enlargement in 2004. Still on the definition, integration capacity is about three things: institutions, budget and policies.
My fourth point is about the public debate, and here I would like to point the finger at the European Council, which is saying that we need to link enlargement to public opinion. We say yes, of course you have to do that, but do not tell me that you do not have the opportunity to do it. Enlargement negotiations are opened through unanimity. Each chapter is opened with unanimity. Each chapter is closed with unanimity. The whole package is approved by unanimity, and on top of that each Member State is supposed to ratify accession. If within those two to ten years you are not able to explain the benefits of enlargement to the general public I think you are miserably failing in your job, so please do your job and then come and start talking about public opinion. We need more strategic thinking on enlargement.
My final point is about the Constitution. This report outlines a number of issues which we desperately need to clarify before the next enlargement: qualified majority voting, legal personality, the foreign minister, common security policy, etc. These are issues that we badly need to deal with before we can enlarge. The message from this report is: let us get that house in order before 2009 and then start enlarging.
I shall finish with this. Enlargement is probably the best policy the European Union has ever had. It has brought with it peace, prosperity, security and stability. When we talk about enlargement let us not give poor excuses because we know that we are never and yet always ready to enlarge."@pl16
"Senhor Presidente, gostaria de referir cinco pontos a propósito do nosso relatório sobre capacidade de integração. Começarei por agradecer a todos os colegas que participaram no processo, bem como, naturalmente, aos elementos do secretariado que realizaram um excelente trabalho.
O meu primeiro ponto é sobre a terminologia que hoje estamos a utilizar. Começámos por utilizar o termo "capacidade de absorção". Quando estávamos a discutir quem ia elaborar este relatório, falei com o próprio "Sr. Absorção" - o meu caro colega Brok - e chegámos à conclusão de que o termo "absorção" não seria o mais adequado. Penso que o senhor deputado Karl Bid foi muito pertinente quando perguntou: quem quer ser absorvido pela União Europeia? Será que a França quer ser absorvida pela União Europeia? Como é óbvio, a resposta é não. Optámos, por isso, por utilizar um termo mais dinâmico, mais positivo, e decidimos que "capacidade de integração" é efectivamente aquilo que estamos a examinar.
O meu segundo ponto é que este é um tema potencialmente delicado, devido aos muitos interesses em presença. O meu colega e amigo Brok referiu alguns deles. Por outras palavras, podemos ter pessoas que são contra o alargamento mas a favor da Constituição. Há também as que são contra a Constituição mas a favor do alargamento. Depois, temos aquelas que, como eu, são a favor da Constituição e do alargamento, e, por fim, há aquelas que, como o senhor deputado Farage e os demais, são contra os dois.
O que procurámos fazer foi percorrer estes quatro tipos de interesses e penso que conseguimos fazê-lo bastante bem neste relatório. A noção de capacidade de integração não é propriamente uma novidade. Sempre a tivemos presente. Antes de cada alargamento, discute-se sempre até que ponto deve ir o aprofundamento da União Europeia. Antes de 1973, a União tornou-se uma união aduaneira. Antes de 1986, foi apresentado o Acto Único Europeu. Antes da adesão da Finlândia e da Suécia, houve o Tratado de Maastricht. Antes do "big bang" de 2004, tiveram Amsterdão e Nice. O que nós queremos é ter uma Constituição antes do próximo alargamento.
Em terceiro lugar, como definimos capacidade de integração? Penso que a conclusão do presente relatório é que se pode dar uma noção vaga daquilo que efectivamente significa e que se poderá dizer que esta não é uma condição para o alargamento, mas um critério para nós, os actuais Estados-Membros. Temos de pôr a nossa casa em ordem antes de podermos alargar. A dificuldade é que não se pode dar uma definição estrita de capacidade de integração porque está associada a duas coisas: em primeiro lugar, o momento da adesão; em segundo lugar, o número de novos Estados que aderem. Por outras palavras, o alargamento de 1973 foi radicalmente diferente do alargamento de 2004. Ainda relativamente à definição, a capacidade de integração tem a ver com três coisas: instituições, orçamento e políticas.
O meu quarto ponto é sobre o debate público, e gostaria aqui de apontar o dedo ao Conselho Europeu, que diz que precisamos de ligar o alargamento à opinião pública. Nós dizemos que sim, que obviamente têm de fazer isso, mas não me venham dizer que não têm oportunidade de o fazer. As negociações sobre o alargamento são abertas por unanimidade. Cada capítulo é aberto por unanimidade. Cada capítulo é encerrado por unanimidade. O pacote completo é aprovado por unanimidade e, depois de tudo isto, supõe-se que cada Estado-Membro ratifica a adesão. Se neste espaço de dois a dez anos não conseguem explicar ao grande público os benefícios do alargamento, então penso que estão a falhar miseravelmente a sua missão. Por isso, peço por favor que façam o vosso trabalho e depois venham falar sobre opinião pública. Precisamos de mais reflexão estratégica sobre o alargamento.
O meu último ponto é sobre a Constituição. Este relatório descreve uma série de questões que temos de esclarecer dê por onde der antes do próximo alargamento: votação por maioria qualificada, personalidade jurídica, o Ministro dos Negócios Estrangeiros, política de segurança comum, etc. Precisamos absolutamente de tratar estas questões antes de podermos alargar. A mensagem deste relatório é esta: vamos pôr esta casa em ordem antes de 2009 e depois começar a alargar.
Vou terminar a minha intervenção. O alargamento é provavelmente a melhor política que a União Europeia alguma vez teve. Trouxe consigo paz, prosperidade, segurança e estabilidade. Não dêmos desculpas esfarrapadas sempre que falamos do alargamento. Sabemos perfeitamente que nunca estamos prontos mas estamos sempre prontos para o alargamento."@pt17
"Mr President, I would like to make five points about our report on integration capacity. I will start by thanking all those colleagues involved in the process and certainly those in the secretariat who did a wonderful job.
My first point is about the terminology we are using today. The original term which we dealt with was ‘absorption capacity’. When we were discussing who was going to do this report, I talked to Mr Absorption himself – my good friend Mr Brok. We came to the conclusion that perhaps absorption is not the best term to use. I think Carl Bildt put it very well when he said: who wants to be absorbed by the European Union? Does France want to be absorbed by the European Union? Of course the answer is no. So we went for a more dynamic, more positive term and decided that ‘integration capacity’ is really what we are looking at.
My second point is that this is potentially a sensitive subject because there are many interests. My colleague and friend Mr Brok made reference to some of them. In other words you have those types of people who are against enlargement but for the Constitution. You have those who are against the Constitution but for enlargement. Then you have those like me who are for the Constitution and for enlargement, and then there are the likes of Mr Farage and the rest who are against both.
What we tried to do was swim through these four types of interest and I think we have done it fairly well in this report. The notion of integration capacity is nothing really new. We have always had it. There is always a debate before each and every enlargement about how much the European Union should deepen. Before 1973 the Union became a customs union. Before 1986 the Single European Act was put forward. Before the Finnish-Austrian-Swedish accession you had the Maastricht Treaty. Before the big bang in 2004 you had Amsterdam and Nice. What we want is to have a constitution before the next enlargement.
Thirdly, how do we define integration capacity? I think the conclusion of this report is that you can give a vague notion of what it actually means and you could say that it is not a condition for enlargement, but it is a criterion for us, the current Member States. We have to put our house in order before we are able to enlarge. The difficulty is that you cannot give integration capacity a strict definition because it is linked to two things. One: the time of accession. Two: the number of new states coming in. In other words, enlargement in 1973 was radically different to enlargement in 2004. Still on the definition, integration capacity is about three things: institutions, budget and policies.
My fourth point is about the public debate, and here I would like to point the finger at the European Council, which is saying that we need to link enlargement to public opinion. We say yes, of course you have to do that, but do not tell me that you do not have the opportunity to do it. Enlargement negotiations are opened through unanimity. Each chapter is opened with unanimity. Each chapter is closed with unanimity. The whole package is approved by unanimity, and on top of that each Member State is supposed to ratify accession. If within those two to ten years you are not able to explain the benefits of enlargement to the general public I think you are miserably failing in your job, so please do your job and then come and start talking about public opinion. We need more strategic thinking on enlargement.
My final point is about the Constitution. This report outlines a number of issues which we desperately need to clarify before the next enlargement: qualified majority voting, legal personality, the foreign minister, common security policy, etc. These are issues that we badly need to deal with before we can enlarge. The message from this report is: let us get that house in order before 2009 and then start enlarging.
I shall finish with this. Enlargement is probably the best policy the European Union has ever had. It has brought with it peace, prosperity, security and stability. When we talk about enlargement let us not give poor excuses because we know that we are never and yet always ready to enlarge."@sk18
"Mr President, I would like to make five points about our report on integration capacity. I will start by thanking all those colleagues involved in the process and certainly those in the secretariat who did a wonderful job.
My first point is about the terminology we are using today. The original term which we dealt with was ‘absorption capacity’. When we were discussing who was going to do this report, I talked to Mr Absorption himself – my good friend Mr Brok. We came to the conclusion that perhaps absorption is not the best term to use. I think Carl Bildt put it very well when he said: who wants to be absorbed by the European Union? Does France want to be absorbed by the European Union? Of course the answer is no. So we went for a more dynamic, more positive term and decided that ‘integration capacity’ is really what we are looking at.
My second point is that this is potentially a sensitive subject because there are many interests. My colleague and friend Mr Brok made reference to some of them. In other words you have those types of people who are against enlargement but for the Constitution. You have those who are against the Constitution but for enlargement. Then you have those like me who are for the Constitution and for enlargement, and then there are the likes of Mr Farage and the rest who are against both.
What we tried to do was swim through these four types of interest and I think we have done it fairly well in this report. The notion of integration capacity is nothing really new. We have always had it. There is always a debate before each and every enlargement about how much the European Union should deepen. Before 1973 the Union became a customs union. Before 1986 the Single European Act was put forward. Before the Finnish-Austrian-Swedish accession you had the Maastricht Treaty. Before the big bang in 2004 you had Amsterdam and Nice. What we want is to have a constitution before the next enlargement.
Thirdly, how do we define integration capacity? I think the conclusion of this report is that you can give a vague notion of what it actually means and you could say that it is not a condition for enlargement, but it is a criterion for us, the current Member States. We have to put our house in order before we are able to enlarge. The difficulty is that you cannot give integration capacity a strict definition because it is linked to two things. One: the time of accession. Two: the number of new states coming in. In other words, enlargement in 1973 was radically different to enlargement in 2004. Still on the definition, integration capacity is about three things: institutions, budget and policies.
My fourth point is about the public debate, and here I would like to point the finger at the European Council, which is saying that we need to link enlargement to public opinion. We say yes, of course you have to do that, but do not tell me that you do not have the opportunity to do it. Enlargement negotiations are opened through unanimity. Each chapter is opened with unanimity. Each chapter is closed with unanimity. The whole package is approved by unanimity, and on top of that each Member State is supposed to ratify accession. If within those two to ten years you are not able to explain the benefits of enlargement to the general public I think you are miserably failing in your job, so please do your job and then come and start talking about public opinion. We need more strategic thinking on enlargement.
My final point is about the Constitution. This report outlines a number of issues which we desperately need to clarify before the next enlargement: qualified majority voting, legal personality, the foreign minister, common security policy, etc. These are issues that we badly need to deal with before we can enlarge. The message from this report is: let us get that house in order before 2009 and then start enlarging.
I shall finish with this. Enlargement is probably the best policy the European Union has ever had. It has brought with it peace, prosperity, security and stability. When we talk about enlargement let us not give poor excuses because we know that we are never and yet always ready to enlarge."@sl19
".
Herr talman! Jag skulle vilja komma med fem kommentarer om vårt betänkande om integrationskapaciteten. Jag ska inleda med att tacka alla de kolleger som deltagit i processen och givetvis sekretariatets personal som gjorde ett utmärkt arbete.
Min första kommentar gäller vår nuvarande terminologi. Den term som vi ursprungligen använde var ”absorptionsförmåga”. När vi diskuterade vem som skulle göra detta betänkande talade jag med själve ”herr absorption” – min gode vän Elmar Brok. Vi kom till slutsatsen att absorption kanske inte är den bästa termen att använda. Jag anser att Carl Bildt uttryckte det mycket väl när han sa: Vem vill bli absorberad av EU? Vill Frankrike absorberas av EU? Svaret är naturligtvis nej. Så vi sökte efter en mer dynamisk och positiv term och bestämde att ”integrationskapacitet” är just det vi menar.
Min andra kommentar är att detta är en potentiellt känslig fråga eftersom många olika intressen är inblandade. Min kollega och vän Elmar Brok berörde några av dem. Med andra ord finns det personer som är emot utvidgningen men för konstitutionen. Det finns de som är emot konstitutionen men för utvidgningen. Sedan finns det de som liksom jag själv är för konstitutionen och för utvidgningen, och sedan finns det de som liksom Nigel Farage och resten är emot båda.
Vad vi försökte göra var att ta oss igenom dessa fyra typer av intressen och jag tror att vi har lyckats ganska bra i detta betänkande. Begreppet integrationskapacitet är inget helt nytt. Det har alltid funnits. Före varje utvidgning finns det alltid en debatt om hur mycket EU bör fördjupas. Före 1973 blev unionen en tullunion. Före1986 fördes den europeiska enhetsakten fram. Före Finlands, Österrikes och Sveriges anslutning kom Maastrichtfördraget. Före EU:s big bang 2004 kom Amsterdamfördraget och Nicefördraget. Vad vi vill ha är en konstitution före nästa utvidgning.
För det tredje, hur definierar vi integrationskapaciteten? Jag anser att slutsatsen i detta betänkande är att man kan ge en vag uppfattning om vad detta faktiskt innebär och att man kan säga att det inte är en förutsättning för utvidgningen. Däremot är det ett kriterium för oss, de nuvarande medlemsstaterna. Vi måste få ordning på våra egna angelägenheter innan vi kan genomföra en utvidgning. Svårigheten är att man inte kan ge integrationskapaciteten en exakt definition eftersom den är kopplad till två faktorer. För det första till tiden för anslutningen. För det andra till det antal nya stater som går med. Med andra ord skilde sig utvidgningen 1973 radikalt från utvidgningen 2004. När det gäller definitionen kan man konstatera att integrationskapaciteten handlar om tre saker: institutioner, budget och politik.
Min fjärde kommentar handlar om den offentliga debatten och här skulle jag vilja peka på Europeiska rådet som säger att vi bör knyta utvidgningen till den allmänna opinionen. Vi instämmer i detta. Självklart måste man göra det, men säg mig inte att ni saknar möjlighet att göra detta. Förhandlingar om utvidgning inleds genom enhällighet. Varje kapitel inleds med enhällighet. Varje kapitel avslutas med enhällighet. Hela paketet godtas genom enhällighet, och utöver detta ska varje medlemsstat ratificera anslutningen. Om man under dessa två eller tio år inte kan förklara utvidgningens fördelar för allmänheten anser jag att man har misslyckats ordentligt i sitt arbete, så var vänliga och gör ert arbete. Sedan kan ni komma och börja tala om den allmänna opinionen. Vi behöver mer strategiskt tänkande i utvidgningsfrågan.
Min sista kommentar handlar om konstitutionen. I detta betänkande skisseras ett antal frågor som vi absolut måste förtydliga före nästa utvidgning: omröstning med kvalificerad majoritet, rättskapacitet, utrikesministern, gemensam säkerhetspolitik etc. Dessa är frågor som vi med nödvändighet bör ta itu med innan vi kan genomföra en utvidgning. Budskapet i detta betänkande är: Låt oss få ordning på våra egna angelägenheter före 2009 och därefter börja med utvidgning.
Jag ska avsluta så här: Utvidgningen är troligen den bästa strategi som EU någonsin har haft. Den har fört med sig fred, välstånd, säkerhet och stabilitet. När vi talar om utvidgning ska vi inte komma med dåliga ursäkter. Vi vet att vi aldrig men ändå alltid är redo att utvidga EU."@sv21
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"(Aplausos)"20,17
"(Applause)"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,13,4
"Alexander Stubb (PPE-DE ),"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,13,4
"big bang"20,12
"rapporteur"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples