Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-03-Speech-2-114"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001003.4.2-114"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr Brok's report is an excellent description of the European Parliament's position. My group will give it its unanimous support. This debate is a further opportunity for my group to reaffirm its view that the accession of the central and eastern European countries, but also of Cyprus and Malta, is the best way of safeguarding the future for all of us in Europe both in the East and in the West. The sooner we achieve this, the better it will be for all of us.
I am convinced that we can manage this and also that we should manage it. It does presuppose, however, that the European Union will keep its own promise to be ready for enlargement from 1 January 2003. Nice must deliver a substantial reform of the institutions of the European Union. Like everyone else here, I am very grateful that the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, but also the President-in-Office, Mr Moscovici, made it clear this morning that it is substantial reforms that we are talking about and not simply tweaking the rules of one or other institution.
Nevertheless, we also know that in Nice the maximum achievable will be less than the minimum necessary. This means we know that the reforms will continue and must continue after Nice. But we do not want additional hurdles to accession to be set up either in Nice or afterwards. This means that if we want further reform then the structure of the enlarged Union will only be found in the enlarged Union and by the enlarged Union.
Being ready for enlargement is not only about reforming the institutions of the European Union but also about the support of its people. And we all know that they have fears, worries, hesitations and questions: what will enlargement cost? Yes, it is true that enlargement is not free; it does not come free of charge. Yes, it is true: after 2006 it will be necessary to reform the Structural Funds and the support available under the Structural Funds. But it is also true that in the financial perspective up to 2006 EUR 68 billion is provided for; no less, but no more either. I am very grateful that Commissioner Verheugen has made this very clear once more. But if we say this, then surely we must also say that in 1999 the EU achieved an export surplus of EUR 19 billion in trade with the accession countries, and up to 2006 – for the duration of the financial perspective – that makes EUR 90 billion, and that compared with the costs of EUR 68 billion which we have committed for our part in the financial perspective. With this EUR 90 billion the eastern Europeans, not us, are funding tens of thousands of jobs in the European Union. This too is part of the debate on enlargement.
So, let us not always only talk about the costs of enlargement; let us also talk about the costs of non-enlargement. And that is why we call on the Commission to table a study, a kind of Cecchini report, on what non-enlargement would cost. This too would be a useful and important input into the public debate.
Enlargement is not purely a cost-benefit issue. It was the Polish trade union movement Solidarnosc; it was the Hungarian Government which opened the Hungarian borders; it was the Czechoslovak Government which opened up its country. All of them have made the reunification of Europe possible. And today, on the German national holiday, I say it with particular emotion: they also made the reunification of my country possible. And that is why we have the moral and historic duty to make a success of the accession of the peoples of central and eastern Europe to the European Union. I am sure that we will manage it, because we must!
You will realise that we do not only agree with Mr Brok's report, but that I also agree with much of what he said here and, incidentally, also with what Mr van Velzen said. This is no accident, because it shows that the large groups in this House and the vast majority of this House are acting in concert where this issue of the future of the European Union is concerned, and that we all agree that we want the same thing.
We acknowledge the huge efforts which the central and eastern European countries are making to be ready for accession. We welcome the progress which they have made in the past months and years. We know that there are large disparities. But these disparities are also related to the different starting points at which they began the process of converging with the European Union.
We know that the central and eastern European countries will not be able to meet all of the EU's standards by the day of accession. Transitional periods will therefore have to be agreed. Different sectors will require different transitional periods. This is in their interests, but also in ours.
We insist – incidentally as Commissioner Verheugen also did – that these transitional periods be kept as short as possible. Transitional periods are possible and necessary, for example for the free movement of capital, for the free movement of workers, for meeting certain environmental standards which require major investment and for a series of other points.
We will be able to support all of this and we also want to support it. But one point is clear – and I welcome the fact that Mr Verheugen has underlined this once more: there can be no transitional period for complying with democratic rules. Neither can there be a transitional period for securing the external borders if we want to have open borders within the European Union.
Any country joining the EU must also want to join the monetary union. There can and must be no opting out. I am saying this expressly with last week's Danish referendum in mind. But neither must there be any waiver from meeting the Maastricht criteria. Only those which meet the criteria – as they have stood up until now – can introduce the euro; this also applies to all of the current Member States which are introducing the euro. There must be no waivers there either.
My group would also like to emphasise one further point: the future Member States have undertaken to decommission first-generation nuclear power stations of Soviet design. This undertaking – which they themselves entered into – must be carried out, and this by accession to the European Union.
The progress and efforts being made in central and eastern Europe give us hope that the first accession treaties will still be able to be ratified in the European Parliament in this parliamentary term."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples