Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-01-Speech-3-075"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991201.7.3-075"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, as former rapporteur on the enlargement strategy I of course welcome with open arms the new proposals submitted to the Council by the Commission once and for all to eliminate the unfortunate dichotomy between candidate countries, once and for all.
Also, I could not agree more with the reason given in this respect. We used exactly the same reason for promoting the so-called "Regatta model" which did a great deal more justice to the own merits and efforts of the countries that wanted to join the European Union. Indeed, if we say to the most developed of the candidate countries: you are already in really, then they will sit back and no longer put in the same effort. We witnessed this in the case of the Czech Republic: policy stagnated. Other less developed countries, such as Bulgaria and Romania, will be discouraged and will lose the backing of the people for hard-line measures. Thankfully, this bizarre division into two groups is also being rescinded. I highly commend the Council, in anticipation that is, for the fact that it is going to implement these changes and this strategy in accordance with the original Parliament position.
It is extremely important that the European Parliament puts its own house in order too. We need a swift victory during the Intergovernmental Conference in 2000. We need to start reforming our institutions ourselves, to democratise ourselves. We require candidate countries to develop their institutions and ensure that they operate democratically. Imagine if we did not need to meet these requirements ourselves. I am, therefore, extremely taken aback by what Mr Van den Berg, from the [Dutch] Labour Party, wrote in a letter published recently which stated, in so many words, that the Union’s reform should no longer be a prerequisite for enlargement. How can it not be? I am extremely pleased that the leaders in the socialist group here do not subscribe to this view. Indeed, only if one does not operate with the best of intentions for the European Union can one say that we do not need to put our own house in order. We could easily offer the new Member States a house which will turn into a heap of rubble. They are entitled to more. They are entitled to democratically functioning institutions within the EU, of which they want to become members and which can take effective decisions. We should not offer them anything less.
Anyone who wants to focus only on the EU’s achievements as a free trade zone should just continue making this type of proposal. The reproach implicit in his letter that the Union actually regulates far too much at national, regional and local level, is also striking. Only hardened supporters of Mrs Thatcher talk in this way about decentralisation of Union policy. It is genuinely not the case that we rob national, regional and local governments of duties which belong there. Quite the opposite, in fact; subsidiarity is held in very high esteem here. Anyone who denies this is making a mockery of our work.
In my opinion, all Member States should make a proper and sound contribution to the public debate on the European Union and we can bring this about, for example, by ensuring that insignificant issues which take us away from the real issues dealt with by the European Union are abandoned, the type of issues raised by the entire delegation brought by Mr Van den Berg.
I applaud the fact that we are going to develop a European Security and Defence Policy without weakening transatlantic relations and the link with NATO. I am extremely happy that we both, that is Mr Hänsch and I, also clearly agreed on this point, highlighting nevertheless that the European Union really prefers non-military means. This is simply a fact. But we also know that non-military means and diplomatic means often only really work if a credible, military threat is present in the background. I think that as far as this is concerned, we have learnt our lesson. The European Union has been dangerous because it was unable to split sovereign power in terms of security and defence policy. This is now changing, fortunately.
Mr President, I herewith wish the Council the best of luck with the proposals we are submitting and I hope that the Council will, in good time, listen to the European Parliament regarding these other issues as well."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples