Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-03-Speech-2-111"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001003.4.2-111"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Presidents, Commissioner, rapporteurs, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, let me thank you for organising this debate on enlargement. I have two reasons for welcoming this opportunity. Firstly, because the enlargement of the European Union, as Mr Brok has just said, is not just another priority, not that I need to remind the Members of this House. It is the backcloth and the goal of all the activity of today’s European Union, a political goal that conditions all our work, beginning, of course, with the work of reforming the institutions. I would agree with you in not wishing to separate this morning’s debate from this afternoon’s.
Let me now mention the second guideline along which the Presidency hopes the enlargement process will develop in these six months.
I have just mentioned the very important technical work under way for three years now and I have also said that, with regard to at least some candidate countries, we shall very shortly have a quite precise overview of the remaining problems. We think the time has come to take this work to a more political level by combining all the information available to us. That is why we are organising a substantive ministerial debate, which will take place at the General Affairs Council on 20 November on the basis of the precise documents to be provided by the Commission concerning, in particular, the candidate countries’ adoption of the
and the progress that each of them have made. Regarding the basis of this debate, the Presidency will have the necessary elements available to enable the Heads of State and Government in Nice to have a serious discussion regarding the continuation of the enlargement process.
This too is the spirit in which the French Presidency has decided to organise two meetings of the European Conference, bringing together the 15 Member States and the 12 + 1 candidate countries – twelve that have already entered into negotiations and one candidate. One of these meetings will be at ministerial level, on 23 November this year, in Sochaux, and the other will involve the Heads of State and Government in Nice on 7 December. These meetings will be primarily an opportunity to inform the candidate countries of the state of progress in the reform of the institutions, which is of great interest to them as it concerns the European Union that they will be joining but also, of course, to initiate a political discussion with these countries regarding the operation of the enlarged European Union.
It is not, of course, impossible that the candidate countries will seize this opportunity to once again bring up, as you said, Mr President – the subject of the dates for enlargement. This is, of course, a perfectly legitimate question, but it is one that must be answered quite properly and precisely.
I should like to point out that, in a sense, this matter has already been settled, as the Helsinki European Council set the 1 January 2003 as the date when the European Union should be ready to accept the first new members, i.e. the ones that are the best prepared at that time, on condition, of course, that by that time a proper treaty has been signed in Nice and ratified by the national parliaments. This date of 1 January 2003 is by no means a random choice. I see no reason to go back on that decision either way.
Personally, I remain convinced that, in the debate on the date of the first accessions, the European Union must avoid – with very great respect to the European Parliament – trying to make an impact so often. Everyone understands the value of giving the candidate countries a deadline, as an objective and a mobilising factor. The date of 1 January 2003, which is the only one on which the European Union has agreed, is, however, both for the candidates and for ourselves, an extremely ambitious objective and this is the deadline to which the Presidency will be working. Far be it from me and from each of us, I feel, to think that we will have completed all the negotiations in 2001, enabling the results to then be ratified in 2002. This is not the issue and, for a number of candidate countries, as we know, the negotiations will take a few more years yet. It is true, however, that the work which has been undertaken, and which we wish to boost, should make it possible, by the end of the year 2000, both to have a better appreciation of the overall balance in each of the negotiations and also, at least for the most advanced candidate countries, to clearly identify the problems to be resolved as a priority in order to bring these negotiations to a successful conclusion.
What I therefore propose is to work towards this, bearing in mind that, with a view to 2003, we shall have to examine which candidates are ready to join us at that time.
Finally, let me say a brief word on Turkey which, as far as the European Union is concerned, is now clearly part of the enlargement process and is the thirteenth candidate for accession. I am aware, furthermore, that Mr Morillon is currently drawing up a report on this country, and we await this with interest. We cannot but be pleased that, in Helsinki, a number of obstacles with regard to the recognition of this country’s candidacy were overcome. At the same time, we are well aware of the continuing obstacles to this accession, starting with the issues related to respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in this country. Admittedly there has been some progress, but they are still a long way from fulfilling the Copenhagen criteria. Once again, on this point too, in agreement with the Commission, the French Presidency will strive to achieve results in two areas: firstly in the adoption of an accession partnership, which is necessary both for Turkey and for the European Union, and then the implementation of the financial regulation which will enable the European Union to honour the commitments it has made to this country, and that we would like to see adopted by the end of the year.
I share your view, Mr President: the European Union must not have a mean-spirited attitude or a narrow-minded mentality with regard to enlargement. Enlargement is a historic undertaking. Enlargement is a wide-ranging goal which we must approach with a great deal of generosity and with vision. Let us, however, at the same time be aware that the conditions for success must be laid down, both in relation to the candidate countries, in relation to public opinion, and in relation to what we all want, i.e. to maintain sound common policies. Enlargement is our future, on condition that the
and the common policies which we all value highly are not thereby weakened or watered down. That is why we must advance resolutely, declaring ourselves in favour of enlargement while establishing the conditions for it to succeed.
I am quite ready, of course, to follow the very important debate we are all involved in here today.
In this respect, I wish to congratulate the European Parliament on the work accomplished in the reform of a report devoted to each of the twelve candidate countries which have entered into negotiations, and an overall report by Mr Brok, which I shall have the opportunity to comment on in further detail in my speech. I feel, then, that on the basis of the work undertaken by previous presidencies and by the Commission, the French Presidency will be in a position, or so I hope, at least, to offer a quite precise overview of the accession process at the European Council in Nice. I therefore propose, in order to make a useful contribution to this debate, to tell you quite specifically what the French Presidency is doing during these six months to achieve the results I have just mentioned.
Our first guideline is that we must, of course, go as far as possible in the accession negotiations in order to draw up a report that is as accurate as possible, in Nice, country by country and chapter by chapter. With this in mind, let me firstly remind you that we plan to organise for each candidate country two negotiation meetings for alternate members and one at ministerial level, split into two phases, on 21 November and 5 December, back-to-back with the meetings of the General Affairs Council. The French Presidency will immediately inform the committee which you chair, Mr Brok, of the result of these negotiations, come Tuesday afternoon, according to the tradition that has developed between us.
As you know, the Helsinki European Council stressed the principle of differentiation between candidate countries, and both the Presidency and I feel the Commission are truly working, hand in hand, on this matter as regards conducting the negotiations. I would like to emphasise in this House the complete convergence of our views with those of Commissioner Verheugen and I must congratulate him on the very high quality of his work at this point.
This means, then, that each candidacy must be assessed and shall be assessed, in short, on its own merits. That is the wording adopted. I shall not, of course, go into the details of each of these negotiations. I shall perhaps leave that to the debate on the twelve reports which is to follow. I do, nonetheless, wish to outline in a few words the extent of the work undertaken along with those who, for ease of reference – though, like you, I thing this must come to an end, but using the terms ‘Luxembourg Six’ and ‘Helsinki Six’ does describe the timing of the events – I shall call the ‘Luxembourg Six’, in inverted commas. With these six countries, all the chapters of the
bar one, the chapter on the institutions, have been opened, though some have been closed temporarily, between 12 and 16 depending on the country, and others are still being negotiated, between 13 and 18 depending on the country. I therefore feel that we are beginning to get a fairly clear picture of the problems that remain in each of these negotiations, both from the point of view of the candidate countries and from that of the European Union itself. I think these can be divided into three categories.
Firstly there is the matter of adopting the
. What stage are the candidate countries at? How in practical terms can we assess the commitments they are making as part of the negotiations and their ability to effectively transpose the
? That is why, just like the European Parliament, the French Presidency wished to have access to the tracking schedules for monitoring adoption of the
updated regularly, it being understood that the basic principle of the negotiations must continue to be the wholesale adoption of the
.
Next there is the matter of the transitional periods. This is obviously related to the previous issue. As you know, the candidates have expressed a number of requests to this effect. This, moreover, is a sign that the accession negotiations have clearly entered a new phase and that henceforth, as the French Presidency wishes, we should go into substantive discussions. In this respect, I should like to point out that the Council has, on the basis of an initial document from the Commission, initiated a consultation process which should enable the European Union to make progress in the negotiations.
Finally, of course, there are the negotiating positions, concerning the most difficult chapters of the
taking particular account of their budgetary implications for the European Union. I am, of course, thinking of the common agricultural policy and the regional development policies. I have said, and I have no problem saying it again here today, that the French Presidency will not duck any of the problems that are raised. This does not, of course, mean that we shall have the time and resources to deal with each of them. As far as we are concerned, however, imparting a new dynamic to these negotiations means, particularly with regard to the issue of transitional periods, we shall do all we possibly can in order to make progress pragmatically.
Next, let me say a few works on the ‘Helsinki Six’, in inverted commas once again, who entered into negotiations at the beginning of this year. By the end of our Presidency, half of the chapters of the
will have been opened to negotiation. We in fact expect, in absolute agreement with Commissioner Verheugen, to enter into negotiations on 42 new chapters, i.e. between 4 and 9 according to country, just like the Portuguese Presidency before us. This should enable the best candidates to catch up the members of the Luxembourg group quite quickly and perhaps indeed, as early as next year. We know that this is a wish which some of you have expressed quite clearly in Parliament. Obviously the work carried out by each of the rapporteurs and by the parliamentary committees will serve a useful purpose in providing fuel for our own discussions."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples