Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-12-13-Speech-3-047"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech⁶
dcterms:Date	"2006-12-13"^^xsd:date⁶
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Laienemisstrateegia ja peamised väljakutsed 2006-2007 – Institutsioonilised aspektid, mis käsitlevad Euroopa Liidu võimet integreerida uued liikmesriigid (arutelu)⁶
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language⁶
lpv:document identification number	"en.20061213.4.3-047"⁶
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-12-13-Speech-3-048⁶
lpv:speaker	lp:Richard Corbett⁶
lpv:spoken text	"Mr President, Mr Stubb said that enlargement has been the most successful EU policy, spreading stability, peace and prosperity across our continent. That logic still applies. Of course it means that the European Union must adapt, especially in terms of institutional reform. However, does it mean that we should block any enlargement until all institutional reforms have been achieved? If that were the case, the last enlargement would never have happened, because the Treaty of Nice was clearly insufficient. Perhaps even the 1973 enlargement might not have happened. The fact is that enlargement is one of the factors that drive reform. Some Member States that are reluctant to embrace institutional reform often accept its necessity as a consequence of enlargement. Therefore supporters of reform should be supporters of enlargement. Yet Mr Méndez de Vigo said that there should be no future enlargements without the Constitutional Treaty. Indeed, paragraph 9 of Mr Stubb’s report states that ‘any enlargement requires...’ – and then there is a long list of items that are all contained in the Constitutional Treaty. We have a slight difficulty with that absolute position. Mr Brok said that those who push hardest for widening are often those who oppose deepening. Yet if you want to force both, you need to press for both. There is a real danger that, on the one hand, you will have people who say that they do not want enlargement until we have institutional reform and, on the other, you will have those who say that we do not need institutional reform until we have enlargement. If you want to drive forward both agendas you need to support both, because it is both that will drive us forward to having an enlarged and a reformed European Union. That is why our group has tabled an amendment to paragraph 9 to make it clear that we do not see as a precondition having every single part of an institutional agenda accepted before any single enlargement takes place. We believe that the two processes – enlargement and reform – will go together; they will drive each other forward and they may, perhaps, end up being enacted on the same day – a new treaty and an accession treaty perhaps rolled into one."@en⁴
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; LIBE (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)²² member; PES (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)²² member; AFCO (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)²² substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of the Andean Community (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)²² unknown; Labour Party (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)²² member; Delegation for relations with Japan (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)²²
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Mr Stubb said that enlargement has been the most successful EU policy, spreading stability, peace and prosperity across our continent. That logic still applies. Of course it means that the European Union must adapt, especially in terms of institutional reform. However, does it mean that we should block any enlargement until all institutional reforms have been achieved? If that were the case, the last enlargement would never have happened, because the Treaty of Nice was clearly insufficient. Perhaps even the 1973 enlargement might not have happened. The fact is that enlargement is one of the factors that drive reform. Some Member States that are reluctant to embrace institutional reform often accept its necessity as a consequence of enlargement. Therefore supporters of reform should be supporters of enlargement. Yet Mr Méndez de Vigo said that there should be no future enlargements without the Constitutional Treaty. Indeed, paragraph 9 of Mr Stubb’s report states that ‘any enlargement requires...’ – and then there is a long list of items that are all contained in the Constitutional Treaty. We have a slight difficulty with that absolute position. Mr Brok said that those who push hardest for widening are often those who oppose deepening. Yet if you want to force both, you need to press for both. There is a real danger that, on the one hand, you will have people who say that they do not want enlargement until we have institutional reform and, on the other, you will have those who say that we do not need institutional reform until we have enlargement. If you want to drive forward both agendas you need to support both, because it is both that will drive us forward to having an enlarged and a reformed European Union. That is why our group has tabled an amendment to paragraph 9 to make it clear that we do not see as a precondition having every single part of an institutional agenda accepted before any single enlargement takes place. We believe that the two processes – enlargement and reform – will go together; they will drive each other forward and they may, perhaps, end up being enacted on the same day – a new treaty and an accession treaty perhaps rolled into one."@cs¹ "Hr. formand! Ifølge hr. Stubb er udvidelse den mest vellykkede EU-politik, der spreder stabilitet, fred og fremgang på hele vores kontinent. Den logik gælder stadig. Det betyder naturligvis, at EU skal tilpasse sig, især hvad angår en institutionel reform. Men betyder det også, at vi skal forhindre enhver udvidelse, indtil alle institutionelle reformer er på plads? Hvis det var tilfældet, ville den seneste udvidelse aldrig have fundet sted, for Nice-traktaten var tydeligvis utilstrækkelig. Måske havde udvidelsen i 1973 ikke engang fundet sted. Sagen er, at udvidelse er en af de faktorer, der driver reformerne. Visse medlemsstater, der kun modvilligt accepterer institutionelle reformer, accepterer dem ofte som en nødvendighed, der følger af udvidelse. Fortalere for reform skulle derfor også være fortalere for udvidelse. På trods heraf udtalte hr. Méndez de Vigo, at der ikke vil ske nogen udvidelse i fremtiden uden en forfatningstraktat. Ja, selv afsnit 9 i hr. Stubbs betænkning står der, at "inden nogen som helst udvidelse er det absolut påkrævet…" - og så følger en lang liste med ting, der alle findes i forfatningstraktaten. Vi er ikke så glade for den kategoriske holdning. Hr. Brok har udtalt, at dem, der presser hårdest på for at opnå udvidelse, ofte også er dem, der er imod tilnærmelse. Men hvis man vil tvinge begge dele igennem, er man nødt til at presse på for begge dele. Der er en reel fare for, at man på den ene side har folk, der siger, at de ikke ønsker udvidelse, før vi har gennemført en institutionel reform, og på den anden har dem, der siger, at vi ikke har brug for institutionel reform, før der er sket en udvidelse. Hvis man ønsker at fremme begge dagsordener, er man nødt til at støtte dem begge, for det er dem begge, der vil føre os fremad mod et udvidet og reformeret EU. Det er grunden til, at vores gruppe har fremlagt et ændringsforslag til afsnit 9 - for at gøre det klart, at vi ikke betragter det som en forudsætning, at hver eneste del af en institutionel dagsorden er vedtaget, før en eneste udvidelse finder sted. Vi tror, de to processer - udvidelse og reform - vil følges ad. De vil bære hinanden frem og ender måske med at blive vedtaget samme dag - en ny traktat og en tiltrædelsestraktat, der måske slås sammen i én."@da² "Herr Präsident! Herr Stubb sagte, dass die Erweiterung zu den erfolgreichsten Politikbereichen der EU gehört und zur Verbreitung von Stabilität, Frieden und Wohlstand auf unserem Kontinent beigetragen hat. Dies gilt nach wie vor. Natürlich bedeutet das, dass sich die Europäische Union verändern muss, namentlich, was die institutionelle Reform angeht. Doch heißt das auch, dass wir jede Erweiterung blockieren sollten, bis alle institutionellen Reformen abgeschlossen sind? Wäre dies der Fall, wäre die letzte Erweiterung nie durchgeführt worden, weil der Vertrag von Nizza ohne jeden Zweifel unzureichend war. Dann hätte es vielleicht nicht einmal die Erweiterung von 1973 gegeben. Tatsache ist, dass die Erweiterung zu den Faktoren gehört, die den Reformprozess vorantreiben. Manche Mitgliedstaaten, die sich gegen institutionelle Reformen sträuben, akzeptieren deren Notwendigkeit häufig als Konsequenz der Erweiterung. Daher sollten die Befürworter von Reformen auch die Erweiterung unterstützen. Trotzdem sagte Herr Méndez de Vigo, dass es ohne den Verfassungsvertrag keine künftigen Erweiterungen geben sollte. Im Bericht Stubb wird unter Ziffer 9 erklärt, was „vor jeder künftigen Erweiterung ... notwendig ist“ – und dann folgt eine lange Liste von Punkten, die alle im Verfassungsvertrag enthalten sind. Ich kann nicht leugnen, dass wir mit dieser starren Position einige Schwierigkeiten haben. Herr Brok sagte, häufig seien es diejenigen, die sich am vehementesten für eine Erweiterung einsetzten, die eine Vertiefung ablehnten. Wenn man beides forcieren will, muss man beides vorantreiben. Es besteht eine echte Gefahr, dass eine Seite die Position vertritt, dass keine Erweiterung durchgeführt werden darf, solange wir keine institutionelle Reform haben, und die andere Seite argumentiert, dass wir keine institutionelle Reform brauchen, solange wir keine Erweiterung haben. Wenn wir beide Vorhaben vorantreiben wollen, müssen wir beide unterstützen, denn nur mit beiden können wir eine erweiterte und eine erneuerte Europäische Union erreichen. Unsere Fraktion hat deshalb einen Änderungsantrag zu Ziffer 9 eingereicht, mit dem wir klarstellen wollen, dass wir es nicht als Voraussetzung betrachten, dass jeder einzelne Teil einer institutionellen Agenda akzeptiert wird, damit überhaupt eine Erweiterung stattfinden kann. Wir glauben, dass die beiden Prozesse – die Erweiterung und die Reform – Hand in Hand gehen werden. Sie werden sich gegenseitig vorantreiben und vielleicht werden am Ende sogar beide – ein neuer Vertrag und ein Beitrittsvertrag – am selben Tag in Kraft gesetzt."@de⁹ "Κύριε Πρόεδρε, ο κ. Stubb δήλωσε ότι η διεύρυνση είναι η πιο επιτυχημένη πολιτική της ΕΕ, επεκτείνοντας τη σταθερότητα, την ειρήνη και την ευημερία σε όλη την ήπειρό μας. Αυτή η λογική εξακολουθεί να ισχύει. Βεβαίως, σημαίνει ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση πρέπει να προσαρμοστεί, ιδίως όσον αφορά τη θεσμική της μεταρρύθμιση. Μήπως, όμως, σημαίνει επίσης ότι πρέπει να εμποδίσουμε κάθε μελλοντική διεύρυνση μέχρις ότου ολοκληρωθούν οι θεσμικές μεταρρυθμίσεις; Αν ίσχυε κάτι τέτοιο, η τελευταία διεύρυνση δεν θα είχε συμβεί ποτέ, καθόσον η Συνθήκη της Νίκαιας ήταν σαφώς ανεπαρκής. Ενδεχομένως μάλιστα να μην είχε συμβεί καν η διεύρυνση του 1973. Γεγονός είναι ότι η διεύρυνση είναι ένα από τα κίνητρα για τις μεταρρυθμίσεις. Ορισμένα κράτη μέλη τα οποία διστάζουν να αποδεχτούν τη θεσμική μεταρρύθμιση συχνά αποδέχονται την αναγκαιότητά της ως συνέπεια της διεύρυνσης. Ως εκ τούτου, οι υποστηρικτές των μεταρρυθμίσεων πρέπει να υποστηρίζουν επίσης τη διεύρυνση. Εντούτοις, ο κ. Méndez de Vigo δήλωσε ότι δεν πρέπει να υπάρξει περαιτέρω διεύρυνση χωρίς τη Συνταγματική Συνθήκη. Μάλιστα, στην παράγραφο 9 της έκθεσης του κ. Stubb αναφέρεται ότι «κάθε επόμενη διεύρυνση θα απαιτεί...» – και ακολουθεί ένας μακρύς κατάλογος στοιχείων τα οποία περιλαμβάνονται στη Συνταγματική Συνθήκη. Δυσκολευόμαστε να δεχτούμε μια τόσο απόλυτη θέση. Ο κ. Brok δήλωσε ότι αυτοί που προωθούν περισσότερο τη διεύρυνση είναι συνήθως οι ίδιοι που αντιτίθενται στην εμβάθυνση. Αν όμως επιθυμεί κανείς να προωθήσει και τα δύο, πρέπει να τα προωθήσει ταυτοχρόνως. Υπάρχει πραγματικός κίνδυνος να δημιουργηθούν δύο ομάδες ανθρώπων, η μία εκ των οποίων θα υποστηρίζει ότι δεν επιθυμεί τη διεύρυνση χωρίς να ολοκληρωθεί η θεσμική μεταρρύθμιση, ενώ η άλλη θα υποστηρίζει ότι δεν χρειαζόμαστε θεσμική μεταρρύθμιση προτού προχωρήσουμε σε διεύρυνση. Αν θέλετε να προωθήσετε και τους δύο στόχους, πρέπει να τους υποστηρίξετε εξίσου, διότι μόνον έτσι θα επιτύχουμε συγχρόνως τη διεύρυνση και τη μεταρρύθμιση της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Γι’ αυτό η Ομάδα μας κατέθεσε μια τροπολογία επί της παραγράφου 9, με σκοπό να διευκρινιστεί ότι δεν θεωρούμε ότι η αποδοχή όλων των πτυχών μιας μεταρρύθμισης των θεσμικών οργάνων αποτελεί προϋπόθεση για την πραγματοποίηση οιασδήποτε μελλοντικής διεύρυνσης. Θεωρούμε ότι οι δύο διαδικασίες –η διεύρυνση και η μεταρρύθμιση– πρέπει να συμβαδίζουν· θα προωθήσουν η μία την άλλη, και δεν αποκλείεται να ισχύσουν εν τέλει την ίδια ημέρα – με τον ενδεχόμενο συνδυασμό μιας νέας συνθήκης και μιας Συνθήκης Προσχώρησης."@el¹⁰ "Señor Presidente, el señor Stubb ha dicho que la ampliación ha sido la política de más éxito de la UE, que ha propagado la estabilidad, la paz y la prosperidad en nuestro continente. Esta lógica se sigue aplicando. Por supuesto, significa que la Unión Europea debe adaptarse, especialmente en lo que a la reforma institucional se refiere. Sin embargo, ¿quiere esto decir que deberíamos bloquear todo intento de ampliación hasta que se hayan logrado todas las reformas institucionales? Si ese fuera el caso, la última ampliación nunca habría tenido lugar, porque el Tratado de Niza era claramente insuficiente. Tal vez, incluso la ampliación de 1973 no habría tenido lugar. El hecho es que la ampliación es uno de los factores que impulsan la reforma. Algunos Estados miembros que se muestran reticentes a aceptar la reforma institucional aceptan a menudo su necesidad como una consecuencia de la ampliación. Por tanto, los defensores de la reforma deberían ser defensores de la ampliación. Sin embargo, el señor Méndez de Vigo ha dicho que no debería haber más ampliaciones en el futuro sin el Tratado Constitucional. De hecho, el apartado 9 del informe del señor Stubb indica que «cualquier nueva ampliación requerirá...», y a continuación se recoge una larga lista de elementos que aparecen en el Tratado Constitucional. Nos resulta algo difícil asumir esa posición absoluta. El señor Brok dijo que los que más presionan en favor de la ampliación a menudo son los que se oponen a la profundización. Sin embargo, si queremos forzar los dos aspectos, tenemos que hacer presión en ambos sentidos. Existe el riesgo real de que, por un lado, tengamos a gente que dice que no quiere más ampliación hasta que se hayan realizado las reformas institucionales y, por el otro, tenemos a los que dicen que no necesitamos reformas institucionales hasta que haya más ampliación. Si queremos sacar adelante las dos agendas, tenemos que apoyar las dos, porque son estos dos elementos los que nos harán avanzar hacia una Unión Europea ampliada y reformada. Por este motivo, nuestro Grupo ha presentado una enmienda al apartado 9 a fin de dejar claro que no consideramos una condición previa aceptar cada parte de un programa institucional antes de que tenga lugar una ampliación. Creemos que los dos procesos –ampliación y reforma– irán de la mano; se impulsarán mutuamente y, tal vez, acabarán siendo promulgados el mismo día: un nuevo tratado y un tratado de adhesión, quizás, integrados en un mismo instrumento."@es²⁰ "Mr President, Mr Stubb said that enlargement has been the most successful EU policy, spreading stability, peace and prosperity across our continent. That logic still applies. Of course it means that the European Union must adapt, especially in terms of institutional reform. However, does it mean that we should block any enlargement until all institutional reforms have been achieved? If that were the case, the last enlargement would never have happened, because the Treaty of Nice was clearly insufficient. Perhaps even the 1973 enlargement might not have happened. The fact is that enlargement is one of the factors that drive reform. Some Member States that are reluctant to embrace institutional reform often accept its necessity as a consequence of enlargement. Therefore supporters of reform should be supporters of enlargement. Yet Mr Méndez de Vigo said that there should be no future enlargements without the Constitutional Treaty. Indeed, paragraph 9 of Mr Stubb’s report states that ‘any enlargement requires...’ – and then there is a long list of items that are all contained in the Constitutional Treaty. We have a slight difficulty with that absolute position. Mr Brok said that those who push hardest for widening are often those who oppose deepening. Yet if you want to force both, you need to press for both. There is a real danger that, on the one hand, you will have people who say that they do not want enlargement until we have institutional reform and, on the other, you will have those who say that we do not need institutional reform until we have enlargement. If you want to drive forward both agendas you need to support both, because it is both that will drive us forward to having an enlarged and a reformed European Union. That is why our group has tabled an amendment to paragraph 9 to make it clear that we do not see as a precondition having every single part of an institutional agenda accepted before any single enlargement takes place. We believe that the two processes – enlargement and reform – will go together; they will drive each other forward and they may, perhaps, end up being enacted on the same day – a new treaty and an accession treaty perhaps rolled into one."@et⁵ "Arvoisa puhemies, jäsen Stubbin mukaan laajentuminen on ollut EU:n menestyksekkäintä politiikkaa, joka on levittänyt vakautta, rauhaa ja vaurautta koko mantereellemme. Tämä on yhä perusteltu toteamus. Se tarkoittaa tietenkin, että Euroopan unionin on muututtava varsinkin uudistamalla toimielimiään. Tarkoittaako se kuitenkin myös sitä, että meidän täytyy pidättyä laajentumasta, kunnes kaikki toimielinuudistukset on saatu päätökseen? Jos näin olisi, viimeinen laajentuminen olisi jäänyt tapahtumatta, koska Nizzan sopimus oli selvästi puutteellinen. Ehkä jopa vuoden 1973 laajentuminen olisi jäänyt tapahtumatta. Laajentuminen on itse asiassa yksi uudistuksia eteenpäin vievistä voimista. Eräät jäsenvaltiot, jotka ovat haluttomia hyväksymään toimielinuudistuksen, pitävät sitä kuitenkin laajentumisen jälkeen usein tarpeellisena. Uudistuksen kannattajien pitäisi siis olla myös laajentumisen kannattajia. Ja kuitenkin jäsen Méndez de Vigo totesi, ettei EU:n pitäisi enää laajentua ilman perustuslaillista sopimusta. Myös jäsen Stubbin mietinnön 9 kohdassa todetaan: "[…] ennen uutta laajentumista on tärkeää" ja esitetään sitten pitkä luettelo perustuslailliseen sopimukseen sisältyviä asioita. Meidän on hieman vaikea hyväksyä noin ehdotonta kantaa. Jäsen Brokin mukaan laajentumista ajavat usein voimakkaimmin henkilöt, jotka vastustavat EU:n syventymistä. Kumpikin asia edellyttää kuitenkin, että molempia ajetaan tarmokkaasti eteenpäin. On olemassa todellinen vaara siitä, että jotkut ihmiset sanovat, etteivät he halua laajentumista, ennen kuin toimielimet on uudistettu, ja toiset sanovat puolestaan, ettei toimielinuudistusta tarvita ennen laajentumista. Jos molempia asioita halutaan viedä eteenpäin, molemmat vaativat tukea, koska juuri nämä kaksi asiaa yhdessä vievät meitä eteenpäin kohti laajempaa ja uudistunutta Euroopan unionia. Tästä syystä ryhmämme on jättänyt käsiteltäväksi 9 kohtaa koskevan tarkistuksen, jotta siinä todettaisiin selkeästi, ettei kaikkia toimielinohjelman osia tarvitse meidän mielestämme hyväksyä, ennen kuin EU voi jälleen laajentua. Meidän mielestämme molemmat prosessit – laajentuminen ja uudistaminen – käyvät käsi kädessä: ne vievät toinen toistaan eteenpäin, ja ehkä ne loppujen lopuksi toteutuvatkin samana päivänä – kenties niin, että uusi perustamissopimus ja liittymissopimus yhdistetään toisiinsa."@fi⁷ "Monsieur le Président, M. Stubb a déclaré que l’élargissement a été la politique européenne qui a le plus réussi, répandant la stabilité, la paix et la prospérité sur tout notre continent. Cette logique est toujours d’application. Bien sûr, cela signifie que l’Union européenne doit s’adapter, en particulier en termes de réforme institutionnelle. Cependant, cela signifie-t-il que nous devons bloquer tout élargissement jusqu’à ce que toutes les réformes institutionnelles soient achevées? Si c’était le cas, le dernier élargissement n’aurait jamais eu lieu, parce que le traité de Nice était clairement insuffisant. Peut-être même que l’élargissement de 1973 aurait pu ne pas avoir lieu. Le fait est que l’élargissement est l’un des facteurs qui fait avancer la réforme. Certains États membres qui rechignent à accepter une réforme institutionnelle acceptent souvent sa nécessité comme conséquence de l’élargissement. C’est pourquoi ceux qui soutiennent la réforme devraient soutenir l’élargissement. Cependant M. Méndez de Vigo a déclaré qu’il n’y aurait pas d’autre élargissement sans traité constitutionnel. En effet, le point 9 du rapport de M. Stubb explique que «tout élargissement exige…» - et ensuite il y a une longue liste de choses qui se retrouvent toutes dans le traité constitutionnel. Nous avons un peu de difficulté avec cette position absolue. M. Brok a dit que ceux qui poussent le plus pour un élargissement sont souvent ceux qui s’opposent à l’approfondissement. Pourtant, si vous voulez forcer les deux, vous devez faire pression pour les deux. Le danger existe réellement de voir, d’un côté, des gens dire qu’ils ne veulent pas de l’élargissement jusqu’à ce qu’on ait une réforme institutionnelle et, de l’autre, d’autres personnes dire que nous n’avons pas besoin de réformes institutionnelles avant de procéder à un élargissement. Si vous voulez faire avancer ces deux idées, vous devez les soutenir toutes les deux, car ce sont ces deux idées qui nous mèneront vers une Union européenne élargie et réformée. C’est la raison pour laquelle notre groupe a proposé un amendement au point 9 pour s’assurer qu’on ne verra pas comme condition préalable que chaque partie d’un programme institutionnel doit être acceptée avant tout élargissement futur. Nous pensons que les deux processus - élargissement et réforme - iront de pair; ils se pousseront l’un l’autre et ils pourraient peut-être finir par être promulgués le même jour - un nouveau traité et un traité d’adhésion peut-être réunis en un seul traité."@fr⁸ "Mr President, Mr Stubb said that enlargement has been the most successful EU policy, spreading stability, peace and prosperity across our continent. That logic still applies. Of course it means that the European Union must adapt, especially in terms of institutional reform. However, does it mean that we should block any enlargement until all institutional reforms have been achieved? If that were the case, the last enlargement would never have happened, because the Treaty of Nice was clearly insufficient. Perhaps even the 1973 enlargement might not have happened. The fact is that enlargement is one of the factors that drive reform. Some Member States that are reluctant to embrace institutional reform often accept its necessity as a consequence of enlargement. Therefore supporters of reform should be supporters of enlargement. Yet Mr Méndez de Vigo said that there should be no future enlargements without the Constitutional Treaty. Indeed, paragraph 9 of Mr Stubb’s report states that ‘any enlargement requires...’ – and then there is a long list of items that are all contained in the Constitutional Treaty. We have a slight difficulty with that absolute position. Mr Brok said that those who push hardest for widening are often those who oppose deepening. Yet if you want to force both, you need to press for both. There is a real danger that, on the one hand, you will have people who say that they do not want enlargement until we have institutional reform and, on the other, you will have those who say that we do not need institutional reform until we have enlargement. If you want to drive forward both agendas you need to support both, because it is both that will drive us forward to having an enlarged and a reformed European Union. That is why our group has tabled an amendment to paragraph 9 to make it clear that we do not see as a precondition having every single part of an institutional agenda accepted before any single enlargement takes place. We believe that the two processes – enlargement and reform – will go together; they will drive each other forward and they may, perhaps, end up being enacted on the same day – a new treaty and an accession treaty perhaps rolled into one."@hu¹¹ "Signor Presidente, l’onorevole Stubb ha affermato che l’allargamento è la politica di maggiore successo dell’Unione e diffonde la stabilità, la pace e la prosperità in tutto il nostro continente. Questa logica è tuttora valida. Naturalmente, significa che l’Unione europea deve adattarsi, soprattutto in termini di riforma istituzionale. Tuttavia, significa anche che dobbiamo bloccare qualsiasi allargamento finché non saranno realizzate tutte le riforme istituzionali? Se così fosse, l’ultimo allargamento non sarebbe mai avvenuto, perché il Trattato di Nizza era chiaramente inadeguato. Forse persino l’allargamento del 1973 non avrebbe avuto luogo. Il fatto è che l’allargamento è uno dei fattori che stimolano la riforma. Alcuni Stati membri restii a introdurre la riforma istituzionale spesso ne accettano la necessità in conseguenza dell’allargamento. I sostenitori della riforma dovrebbero quindi sostenere l’allargamento. Tuttavia, l’onorevole Méndez de Vigo ha affermato che non si dovrà procedere a nuovi allargamenti senza il Trattato costituzionale. Infatti, al paragrafo 9 della relazione dell’onorevole Stubb si afferma che “qualsiasi allargamento futuro richiederà...” e poi si fornisce un lungo elenco di elementi che figurano tutti nel Trattato costituzionale. Abbiamo qualche difficoltà con questa posizione assoluta. L’onorevole Brok ha affermato che coloro che più insistono sull’allargamento spesso sono gli stessi che si oppongono all’approfondimento. Eppure, se si vogliono realizzare entrambi, bisogna insistere su entrambi. Sussiste il pericolo reale che, da un lato, vi siano persone che affermano di non volere l’allargamento finché non saranno introdotte le riforme istituzionali e, dall’altro, persone che affermano che non abbiamo bisogno di una riforma istituzionale finché non vi sarà un allargamento. Se si vogliono portare avanti entrambi i progetti, bisogna sostenerli entrambi perché entrambi ci permetteranno di compiere progressi verso un’Unione europea allargata e riformata. Questo è il motivo per cui il nostro gruppo ha presentato un emendamento al paragrafo 9, per precisare che non consideriamo una condizione essenziale l’approvazione di ogni singolo elemento di un programma istituzionale prima di ogni singolo allargamento. Riteniamo che i due processi – l’allargamento e la riforma – vadano di pari passo; si traineranno a vicenda e potrebbero persino finire per essere attuati lo stesso giorno, un nuovo Trattato e un Trattato di adesione, magari concentrati in uno solo."@it¹² "Mr President, Mr Stubb said that enlargement has been the most successful EU policy, spreading stability, peace and prosperity across our continent. That logic still applies. Of course it means that the European Union must adapt, especially in terms of institutional reform. However, does it mean that we should block any enlargement until all institutional reforms have been achieved? If that were the case, the last enlargement would never have happened, because the Treaty of Nice was clearly insufficient. Perhaps even the 1973 enlargement might not have happened. The fact is that enlargement is one of the factors that drive reform. Some Member States that are reluctant to embrace institutional reform often accept its necessity as a consequence of enlargement. Therefore supporters of reform should be supporters of enlargement. Yet Mr Méndez de Vigo said that there should be no future enlargements without the Constitutional Treaty. Indeed, paragraph 9 of Mr Stubb’s report states that ‘any enlargement requires...’ – and then there is a long list of items that are all contained in the Constitutional Treaty. We have a slight difficulty with that absolute position. Mr Brok said that those who push hardest for widening are often those who oppose deepening. Yet if you want to force both, you need to press for both. There is a real danger that, on the one hand, you will have people who say that they do not want enlargement until we have institutional reform and, on the other, you will have those who say that we do not need institutional reform until we have enlargement. If you want to drive forward both agendas you need to support both, because it is both that will drive us forward to having an enlarged and a reformed European Union. That is why our group has tabled an amendment to paragraph 9 to make it clear that we do not see as a precondition having every single part of an institutional agenda accepted before any single enlargement takes place. We believe that the two processes – enlargement and reform – will go together; they will drive each other forward and they may, perhaps, end up being enacted on the same day – a new treaty and an accession treaty perhaps rolled into one."@lt¹⁴ "Mr President, Mr Stubb said that enlargement has been the most successful EU policy, spreading stability, peace and prosperity across our continent. That logic still applies. Of course it means that the European Union must adapt, especially in terms of institutional reform. However, does it mean that we should block any enlargement until all institutional reforms have been achieved? If that were the case, the last enlargement would never have happened, because the Treaty of Nice was clearly insufficient. Perhaps even the 1973 enlargement might not have happened. The fact is that enlargement is one of the factors that drive reform. Some Member States that are reluctant to embrace institutional reform often accept its necessity as a consequence of enlargement. Therefore supporters of reform should be supporters of enlargement. Yet Mr Méndez de Vigo said that there should be no future enlargements without the Constitutional Treaty. Indeed, paragraph 9 of Mr Stubb’s report states that ‘any enlargement requires...’ – and then there is a long list of items that are all contained in the Constitutional Treaty. We have a slight difficulty with that absolute position. Mr Brok said that those who push hardest for widening are often those who oppose deepening. Yet if you want to force both, you need to press for both. There is a real danger that, on the one hand, you will have people who say that they do not want enlargement until we have institutional reform and, on the other, you will have those who say that we do not need institutional reform until we have enlargement. If you want to drive forward both agendas you need to support both, because it is both that will drive us forward to having an enlarged and a reformed European Union. That is why our group has tabled an amendment to paragraph 9 to make it clear that we do not see as a precondition having every single part of an institutional agenda accepted before any single enlargement takes place. We believe that the two processes – enlargement and reform – will go together; they will drive each other forward and they may, perhaps, end up being enacted on the same day – a new treaty and an accession treaty perhaps rolled into one."@lv¹³ "Mr President, Mr Stubb said that enlargement has been the most successful EU policy, spreading stability, peace and prosperity across our continent. That logic still applies. Of course it means that the European Union must adapt, especially in terms of institutional reform. However, does it mean that we should block any enlargement until all institutional reforms have been achieved? If that were the case, the last enlargement would never have happened, because the Treaty of Nice was clearly insufficient. Perhaps even the 1973 enlargement might not have happened. The fact is that enlargement is one of the factors that drive reform. Some Member States that are reluctant to embrace institutional reform often accept its necessity as a consequence of enlargement. Therefore supporters of reform should be supporters of enlargement. Yet Mr Méndez de Vigo said that there should be no future enlargements without the Constitutional Treaty. Indeed, paragraph 9 of Mr Stubb’s report states that ‘any enlargement requires...’ – and then there is a long list of items that are all contained in the Constitutional Treaty. We have a slight difficulty with that absolute position. Mr Brok said that those who push hardest for widening are often those who oppose deepening. Yet if you want to force both, you need to press for both. There is a real danger that, on the one hand, you will have people who say that they do not want enlargement until we have institutional reform and, on the other, you will have those who say that we do not need institutional reform until we have enlargement. If you want to drive forward both agendas you need to support both, because it is both that will drive us forward to having an enlarged and a reformed European Union. That is why our group has tabled an amendment to paragraph 9 to make it clear that we do not see as a precondition having every single part of an institutional agenda accepted before any single enlargement takes place. We believe that the two processes – enlargement and reform – will go together; they will drive each other forward and they may, perhaps, end up being enacted on the same day – a new treaty and an accession treaty perhaps rolled into one."@mt¹⁵ "Mijnheer de Voorzitter, de heer Stubb heeft gezegd dat uitbreiding het meest succesvolle EU-beleid is geweest, en dat daardoor stabiliteit, vrede en welvaart over ons continent werden verspreid. Die logica geldt nog steeds. Dit houdt uiteraard in dat de Europese Unie zich moet aanpassen, en met name moet zorgen voor een institutionele hervorming. Betekent dit echter dat wij elke uitbreiding moeten tegenhouden totdat alle institutionele hervormingen zijn doorgevoerd? Als dat het geval zou zijn, zou de laatste uitbreiding nooit hebben plaatsgevonden, omdat het Verdrag van Nice ontoereikend werd verklaard. Mogelijk zou zelfs de uitbreiding van 1973 niet hebben plaatsgevonden. Het is een feit dat uitbreiding een van de factoren is geweest die hervorming hebben gestimuleerd. Er zijn lidstaten die aarzelen ten aanzien van institutionele hervormingen maar vaak stemmen ze in met de noodzaak ervan als gevolg van een uitbreiding. Voorstanders van hervorming moeten daarom ook voorstanders van uitbreiding zijn. Toch stelde de heer Méndez de Vigo dat er geen toekomstige uitbreidingen zouden mogen plaatsvinden zonder het Grondwettelijk Verdrag. In lid 9 van het verslag van de heer Stubb wordt inderdaad gesteld dat 'voor een verdere uitbreiding zijn (...) nodig...' - en dan volgt een lange lijst met zaken die allemaal zijn opgenomen in het Grondwettelijk Verdrag. Wij hebben wat moeite met dat absolute standpunt. De heer Brok heeft gezegd dat de grootste voorstanders van verbreding vaak de tegenstanders van verdieping zijn. Als je echter beide wilt afdwingen, moet je ook aandringen op beide. Er bestaat een reëel gevaar dat er enerzijds mensen zullen zijn die zeggen dat ze pas uitbreiding willen als de institutionele hervormingen zijn doorgevoerd, en anderzijds mensen die zeggen dat institutionele hervormingen pas nodig zijn als uitbreiding heeft plaatsgevonden. Als je beide agendapunten wilt stimuleren, moet je ze ook beide steunen, omdat we alleen met beide punten kunnen komen tot een uitgebreide en hervormde Europese Unie. Daarom heeft onze fractie een amendement op lid 9 ingediend, om duidelijk te maken dat wij het niet noodzakelijk vinden dat elk afzonderlijk punt van een institutionele agenda moet zijn goedgekeurd voordat er ook maar een enkele uitbreiding plaatsvindt. Wij zijn van mening dat beide processen, uitbreiding en hervorming, samengaan. Ze zullen elkaar voorwaarts duwen en zullen misschien op dezelfde dag voltooid worden: een nieuw verdrag en een toetredingsverdrag gecombineerd in één enkel document."@nl³ "Mr President, Mr Stubb said that enlargement has been the most successful EU policy, spreading stability, peace and prosperity across our continent. That logic still applies. Of course it means that the European Union must adapt, especially in terms of institutional reform. However, does it mean that we should block any enlargement until all institutional reforms have been achieved? If that were the case, the last enlargement would never have happened, because the Treaty of Nice was clearly insufficient. Perhaps even the 1973 enlargement might not have happened. The fact is that enlargement is one of the factors that drive reform. Some Member States that are reluctant to embrace institutional reform often accept its necessity as a consequence of enlargement. Therefore supporters of reform should be supporters of enlargement. Yet Mr Méndez de Vigo said that there should be no future enlargements without the Constitutional Treaty. Indeed, paragraph 9 of Mr Stubb’s report states that ‘any enlargement requires...’ – and then there is a long list of items that are all contained in the Constitutional Treaty. We have a slight difficulty with that absolute position. Mr Brok said that those who push hardest for widening are often those who oppose deepening. Yet if you want to force both, you need to press for both. There is a real danger that, on the one hand, you will have people who say that they do not want enlargement until we have institutional reform and, on the other, you will have those who say that we do not need institutional reform until we have enlargement. If you want to drive forward both agendas you need to support both, because it is both that will drive us forward to having an enlarged and a reformed European Union. That is why our group has tabled an amendment to paragraph 9 to make it clear that we do not see as a precondition having every single part of an institutional agenda accepted before any single enlargement takes place. We believe that the two processes – enlargement and reform – will go together; they will drive each other forward and they may, perhaps, end up being enacted on the same day – a new treaty and an accession treaty perhaps rolled into one."@pl¹⁶ "Senhor Presidente, o senhor deputado Stubb disse que o alargamento foi a política mais bem sucedida da UE, espalhando estabilidade, paz e prosperidade por todo o nosso continente. Essa lógica ainda se aplica. Obviamente que isso significa que a União Europeia tem de se adaptar, especialmente em termos de reforma institucional. Mas será que significa que devemos bloquear todo e qualquer alargamento enquanto não se tiverem realizado todas as reformas institucionais? Nesse caso, o último alargamento nunca teria ocorrido, porque o Tratado de Nice era manifestamente insuficiente. Se calhar nem o alargamento de 1973 devia ter acontecido. A verdade é que o alargamento é um dos factores impulsionadores da reforma. Alguns Estados-Membros que estão relutantes em abraçar a reforma institucional reconhecem frequentemente a sua necessidade como uma consequência do alargamento. Por isso, os partidários da reforma deviam ser partidários do alargamento. No entanto, o senhor deputado Méndez de Vigo disse que não deveria haver alargamentos futuros sem o Tratado Constitucional. De facto, no nº 9 do relatório do senhor deputado Stubb, afirma-se que "qualquer alargamento ... exigirá..." – e em seguida surge uma longa lista de itens que vêm enumerados no Tratado Constitucional. Temos alguma dificuldade com esta posição absoluta. O senhor deputado Brok disse que aqueles que mais empurram para o alargamento são frequentemente aqueles que se opõem ao aprofundamento. No entanto, se quisermos forçar os dois teremos de pressionar também a favor dos dois. Existe um perigo real de, por um lado, termos pessoas que dizem que não querem o alargamento enquanto não houver reforma institucional, e, por outro lado, termos outras que dizem que não precisamos de reforma institucional enquanto não houver alargamento. Se quisermos fazer avançar ambas as agendas também temos de as apoiar às duas, porque serão elas que irão impulsionar-nos para termos uma União Europeia alargada e reformada. Esta é a razão pela qual o nosso grupo apresentou uma alteração ao nº 9 que pretende deixar claro que não consideramos como uma condição prévia que cada uma das partes de uma agenda institucional tem de ser aceite antes de cada alargamento. Acreditamos que os dois processos – alargamento e reforma – andam a par; impulsionam-se mutuamente e podem, eventualmente, vir a ser aprovados no mesmo dia – talvez um novo Tratado e um tratado de adesão em simultâneo."@pt¹⁷ "Mr President, Mr Stubb said that enlargement has been the most successful EU policy, spreading stability, peace and prosperity across our continent. That logic still applies. Of course it means that the European Union must adapt, especially in terms of institutional reform. However, does it mean that we should block any enlargement until all institutional reforms have been achieved? If that were the case, the last enlargement would never have happened, because the Treaty of Nice was clearly insufficient. Perhaps even the 1973 enlargement might not have happened. The fact is that enlargement is one of the factors that drive reform. Some Member States that are reluctant to embrace institutional reform often accept its necessity as a consequence of enlargement. Therefore supporters of reform should be supporters of enlargement. Yet Mr Méndez de Vigo said that there should be no future enlargements without the Constitutional Treaty. Indeed, paragraph 9 of Mr Stubb’s report states that ‘any enlargement requires...’ – and then there is a long list of items that are all contained in the Constitutional Treaty. We have a slight difficulty with that absolute position. Mr Brok said that those who push hardest for widening are often those who oppose deepening. Yet if you want to force both, you need to press for both. There is a real danger that, on the one hand, you will have people who say that they do not want enlargement until we have institutional reform and, on the other, you will have those who say that we do not need institutional reform until we have enlargement. If you want to drive forward both agendas you need to support both, because it is both that will drive us forward to having an enlarged and a reformed European Union. That is why our group has tabled an amendment to paragraph 9 to make it clear that we do not see as a precondition having every single part of an institutional agenda accepted before any single enlargement takes place. We believe that the two processes – enlargement and reform – will go together; they will drive each other forward and they may, perhaps, end up being enacted on the same day – a new treaty and an accession treaty perhaps rolled into one."@sk¹⁸ "Mr President, Mr Stubb said that enlargement has been the most successful EU policy, spreading stability, peace and prosperity across our continent. That logic still applies. Of course it means that the European Union must adapt, especially in terms of institutional reform. However, does it mean that we should block any enlargement until all institutional reforms have been achieved? If that were the case, the last enlargement would never have happened, because the Treaty of Nice was clearly insufficient. Perhaps even the 1973 enlargement might not have happened. The fact is that enlargement is one of the factors that drive reform. Some Member States that are reluctant to embrace institutional reform often accept its necessity as a consequence of enlargement. Therefore supporters of reform should be supporters of enlargement. Yet Mr Méndez de Vigo said that there should be no future enlargements without the Constitutional Treaty. Indeed, paragraph 9 of Mr Stubb’s report states that ‘any enlargement requires...’ – and then there is a long list of items that are all contained in the Constitutional Treaty. We have a slight difficulty with that absolute position. Mr Brok said that those who push hardest for widening are often those who oppose deepening. Yet if you want to force both, you need to press for both. There is a real danger that, on the one hand, you will have people who say that they do not want enlargement until we have institutional reform and, on the other, you will have those who say that we do not need institutional reform until we have enlargement. If you want to drive forward both agendas you need to support both, because it is both that will drive us forward to having an enlarged and a reformed European Union. That is why our group has tabled an amendment to paragraph 9 to make it clear that we do not see as a precondition having every single part of an institutional agenda accepted before any single enlargement takes place. We believe that the two processes – enlargement and reform – will go together; they will drive each other forward and they may, perhaps, end up being enacted on the same day – a new treaty and an accession treaty perhaps rolled into one."@sl¹⁹ "Herr talman! Alexander Stubb sa att utvidgningen har varit den mest framgångsrika politik som EU har fört. Den sprider stabilitet, fred och välstånd över vår kontinent. Detta resonemang håller fortfarande. Självklart innebär det att EU måste anpassa sig, särskilt när det gäller den institutionella reformen. Innebär då detta att vi bör hindra varje utvidgning tills alla institutionella reformer har genomförts? Om detta var fallet skulle den senaste utvidgningen aldrig ha ägt rum, eftersom Nicefördraget var uppenbart otillräckligt. Kanske inte heller 1973 års utvidgning skulle ha ägt rum. Faktum är att utvidgningen är en av de faktorer som driver på reformen. Vissa medlemsstater som tvekar inför att anamma den institutionella reformen accepterar ofta att den är en nödvändig konsekvens av utvidgningen. Därför bör de som stöder reformen stödja utvidgningen. Ändå sa Íñigo Méndez De Vigo att det inte skulle bli några framtida utvidgningar utan konstitutionsfördraget. I punkt 9 i Alexander Stubbs betänkande uppges faktiskt vad varje utvidgning kräver – och sedan kommer det en lång lista över saker som alla innefattas i konstitutionsfördraget. Vi har lite svårt för denna absoluta ståndpunkt. Elmar Brok sa att de som kämpar hårdast för en breddning ofta är de som motsätter sig en fördjupning. Men om man vill skynda på båda dessa, måste man också arbeta för båda. Det finns en fara i att det å ena sidan kommer att finnas personer som säger att de inte vill ha någon utvidgning innan vi har en institutionell reform och å andra sidan personer som säger att vi inte behöver någon institutionell reform innan vi har en utvidgning. Om man vill driva på båda dagordningarna måste man stödja båda, eftersom det är båda som kommer att föra oss framåt mot ett utvidgat och reformerat EU. Därför har vår grupp lagt fram ett ändringsförslag till punkt 9 för att tydliggöra att vi inte ser det som en förutsättning att varje enskild del av en institutionell dagordning antas innan någon enskild utvidgning äger rum. Vi tror att de båda processerna – utvidgning och reform – kommer att ske tillsammans. De kommer att driva på varandra och de kanske i slutändan kommer att äga rum samma dag – ett nytt fördrag och ett anslutningsfördrag kanske antas på samma gång."@sv²¹
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Richard Corbett (PSE ). –"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4}