Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-12-Speech-3-147"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020612.5.3-147"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, honourable Members, I welcome today's debate on enlargement as an opportunity to send out a clear message in the run up to the European Council in Seville. The various resolutions to be put to the vote today bear witness once again to Parliament's vital contribution to the quality and pace of the enlargement process and I am grateful for the reliable meeting of minds between Parliament and the Commission on this issue.
Parliament still has to look at all the legal implications. All I want to say is that the fundamental correlation between this issue and successful enlargement lies in how we talk about it. The debate must be held in a spirit of mutual respect and with respect for everyone's suffering and different experiences. It must be held so that it heals instead of inflicting new wounds. It is precisely because of the tragedies which have marked Europe in very different ways that there is only one reasonable way forward, the way of reconciliation. That is what European unification is all about. Anyone in Europe today who wants to ensure that old wounds are not re-opened, anyone who wants to ensure that no future generation ever has to suffer what earlier generations suffered must stand for a common future, be prepared to look a truth which has many facets in the eye and hold out a hand to integration and cooperation.
Honourable Members, Parliament and the Commission are agreed: the efforts of the candidate countries to date and the results of the negotiations give us good cause to believe that we shall be able to bring one of the most difficult projects which Europe has undertaken in its whole history to an initial, important conclusion in Copenhagen. We are on schedule. The Spanish Presidency has performed exceedingly well and I should like to take this opportunity to thank the Spanish Presidency and Foreign Minister Josep Piqué and my old friend Ramón de Miguel for an unbelievably ambitious presidency. The Spaniards drove us hard – but they are allowed to do that and it is good that they did. That is what the Presidency is there for and the results were worth it.
As Ramón de Miguel has already mentioned, we have just returned from the latest round of ministerial-level negotiations in Luxembourg. At the end of this round, the state of play is as follows. We are now entering the final round with ten countries. The EU has common standpoints on all the chapters being negotiated, including all the chapters in the financial package, with the exception of agriculture, although in fact there is only one point here on which no agreement has yet been reached and that is the question of direct income support.
The fact that considerable difficulties have now arisen on this question comes as no surprise but they are coming to an end. It is a question of dividing the burden. I think we have to say in all honesty to the citizens of Europe that the enormous political and economic benefits of enlargement come at a price, as the Member States fully recognised in Berlin in 1999. Yes, we are being called on to demonstrate solidarity now and it is in our interest to do so. We need to discuss the costs of enlargement thoroughly, but then, excuse me, we also need to discuss the cost of not enlarging. The message which came out of Luxembourg last Monday has triggered insecurity in the candidate countries. There is no point in denying it. According to the candidate countries, they have been given a promise and they are banking on it. The promise is that, if they meet the conditions, they can accede. Obviously, delays can never be completely ruled out but be warned: we do not want any delays because the Member States cannot agree among themselves.
I should like to take this opportunity to add two brief comments. There are two arguments in the current debate, which the Commission cannot accept. The first is that we cannot conclude enlargement negotiations because we do not know what the financial impact will be post 2006. That is an argument that belies a very modest intellectual approach, because it applies to all European Union policies.
There is not a single European Union policy, the financial future of which after 2006 is already known to us today. I remember quite clearly what the Presidency had in mind in the first half of 1999 following the outcome in Berlin, namely the unification of the European Union on the basis of the financial conditions for enlargement before 2006. What I want to know is, if we were satisfied with the figures in 1999, why should we no longer be satisfied with the same figures in 2002.
The second thing I want to say is that the argument that direct agricultural payments – leaving aside for the moment whether you like them or not – are not a part of Community law, is one that really cannot be taken seriously. You just have to read Community law. It is there in black and white. Passed by unanimous agreement. If you say that direct payments are not a part of European Community law, you might just as well say the moon is blue. You can say it, but it does not change anything.
Honourable Members, 14 technical negotiating chapters have yet to be closed for the first ten countries we hope to sign up in Copenhagen. I am assuming that this number will be even lower by the end of the Spanish Presidency, by which I mean that we shall achieve our target of making sure there are no technical chapters left on the table for the final stage of negotiations. That will be a huge achievement. I am pleased to report that we managed to resolve one of the most difficult and perhaps most important issues in the entire process at this week's accession conference, namely the question of the closure of the Ignalina nuclear power station in Lithuania. I must confess I am somewhat surprised at public opinion in Europe. To see how much attention was paid to the Temelin nuclear power station in the Czech Republic, which is generally considered to be safe, and how little attention was paid to the fact that Lithuania has a Chernobyl-type nuclear power station which represents a danger to both Lithuania and everyone else, and a considerable one …
I should like to take this opportunity to thank all the parliamentary rapporteurs for working so constructively with the Commission. I should also like to address a particular word of thanks to your presidents, whose presence in the future Member States is having an encouraging effect and building confidence.
Yes, like Chernobyl, a Chernobyl-type nuclear power station.
Yes, but the Ukraine is not a candidate country and I have no opportunity to exert any influence on the Ukraine.
What we were looking to do here was to get rid of this Chernobyl-type nuclear power station during the course of the enlargement process. This is an incredible achievement on the part of Lithuania, because this nuclear power station is about as important to the Lithuanian economy as the automobile industry is to Germany. I think that Lithuania deserves a great deal of recognition for the courageous and far-reaching decision which it has taken in the interest of the whole of Europe and I for one am very, very grateful to it.
Honourable Members, we now need to clarify how many countries we can count on for the final round of negotiations in Copenhagen. This is also crucial for the chapter on institutions. The Commission will submit its appraisal of the situation in October, together with its recommendations as to which candidate countries we should be able to sign up by the end of the year, shortly before the European Council in Brussels. I expect that the European Council in Brussels will then take its decision on that basis.
The Commission will be guided in its proposal solely by the negotiating principles. There will be no political preselection. The only criterion will be whether or not a country really has met the conditions for accession. At the same time, we should also have clarified the financial framework and all the related issues by the time the European Council meets in Brussels.
This will ensure that negotiations between October and the beginning of December focus on the few outstanding issues, one being the question of the overall sum in financing. Once this sum has been set, dividing it up between the individual candidate countries and individual policy areas will be more or less a purely mathematical exercise, thanks to the excellent preparatory work carried out under the Spanish Presidency.
Secondly, and this is closely related to agreement on the overall budget, we need to consider the configuration and size of the budget mechanism already decided in principle under the Spanish Presidency. Thirdly, we must be prepared for individual issues in the agricultural chapter – I am thinking in particular of quotas and direct income support here – to remain on the table right through to the end.
The months of negotiation ahead of us will be hard work. But I am positive that, with flexibility and political perceptiveness, reasonable solutions can be found. But I should like to take this opportunity to state quite clearly that the conclusions of the European Council meetings in Gothenburg and Laeken cannot be interpreted to mean that the European Union will not agree on its common standpoints until Copenhagen; the conclusions of Gothenburg and Laeken can only be interpreted to mean that actual negotiations with the candidate countries will be completed in Copenhagen, so that, as the European Parliament hoped, they can accede in time to take part in the European elections in 2004.
The resolutions and today's debate mark the end of a very intensive procedure in Parliament over recent months, resulting in a clear 'Yes' to the enlargement strategy and timetable. Our assessment that ten countries will be in a position to conclude negotiations at the end of this year, provided their reforms stay on course, has been confirmed and I am much obliged for the far-reaching consensus in the analysis and conclusions.
Mr Ramón de Miguel has already referred to Bulgaria and Romania on behalf of the Spanish Presidency. I can confirm what he said. Both countries still need more time to meet the accession criteria. Which is precisely why they need a clear signal that they have not missed the boat in Copenhagen. The Commission will therefore submit proposals to improve and strengthen the accession strategy for the countries which will be unable to sign up in 2002. Where possible, we should push ahead with negotiations with Bulgaria and Romania and mobilise additional help.
Honourable Members, it is clear – as expected – both from the most recent progress report and from your resolutions that correct application is the biggest obstacle in the candidate countries on the road towards the Copenhagen criteria. In most candidate countries, the cause of these difficulties is rooted in their past and in the difficult transformation process.
Last year, the Commission proposed mobilising additional funds and announced action plans in order to provide better support for candidates. A report on the action plans on administrative and judicial capacities, adopted by the Commission on 5 June, will be tabled at the European Council in Seville. The report states quite clearly, without pulling any punches, which areas in the candidate countries still show signs of weakness which need intensive work in the future.
May I also say at this point, however, that the report also clearly states what complex and differentiated instruments for analysis, verification and control of administrative developments and legal practice have been developed in the candidate countries. No other candidate even came anywhere close in earlier enlargement rounds. Never have candidates been so thoroughly tested. Never before was a prospective Member State exposed under such a harsh light to the critical eyes of one and all. I think I can also say that never before has a future Member State been better prepared for its new role. Which is another reason why the current enlargement round cannot be compared with previous rounds. We are making very high demands.
This approach, however, has borne considerable fruit and has set standards in the candidate countries themselves. If we keep on working here, and the Commission has proposed that we do so to accession and beyond, it will have lasting effects which may even act as an incentive in the present-day EU.
I know that the Commission reports on preparations by candidates, on technical assistance, on institution building, on twinning, on monitoring and control instruments etc. are not of any particular interest to the public. But woe betide if we were to dispense with these efforts! In fact, the credibility of the entire process is at stake here. We want to be sure that all avoidable risks are pre-empted.
Apart from the negotiations and tasks which are the preserve of the candidate countries, there is homework which we still have to do. We still have to ratify the Treaty of Nice. We have known that for a long time. The European Council in Barcelona confirmed once again that the Treaty must take effect. But, unlike many observers, my money is on the Irish experience of integration, on Irish support for European integration, on the knowledge that the integration of Ireland has made development possible which nobody dared hope for thirty years ago. The point is, will the countries of central and eastern Europe be able to catch up as Ireland has done. That will be decided during the second referendum.
Nor must we lose sight of the fact on our way to Copenhagen that enlargement will bring important partners in eastern Europe closer to home. In future, the EU will border on Byelorussia and the Ukraine, as well as Russia. In a few years' time, we shall be neighbours with the Republic of Moldavia. It is the Commission's stated objective to make full use of the positive effects of enlargement and to further the development of democracy and the market economy in the countries destined to become our future neighbours and we have created the foundations for this by developing a strategic partnership with Russia and the Ukraine.
However the results of the last EU-Russia Summit did not only fill me with joy, mainly because discussions in Moscow on Kaliningrad were confined to the overland transit problem, a question which concerns not just the EU, but Lithuania and Poland also. As you know, Russia is calling for visa-free access rules; however, Poland and Lithuania have rejected this, as do Parliament and the Commission. The European Union will decide its final position here at the European Council in Seville. But I will say that the real problem of the geographical location of Kaliningrad is how the European Union and Russia can join forces to ensure that the situation in Kaliningrad improves and the area can profit significantly in the long term from the development of its neighbours. I would be delighted if we could start an intensive dialogue with Russia.
Nobody is indifferent to the public's opinion on enlargement. It depends on a great deal, on information, on presentation, on our ability to give convincing answers. We know that from our own political experience, which is why the Commission started a communication initiative, with the support of the European Parliament, for the Member States and the candidate countries alike, an implementation report on which will be presented to the European Council in Seville. But here too we must be honest. Commission, Parliament, Council, we can all do a great deal. But there is no substitute for the effort needed by towns and communities, regions and Member States, the economy and science, art and culture. Recent surveys have shown that there is still an information deficit on enlargement, which is why I urgently call on you to engage in conversation with our citizens, to answer their questions and allay their fears wherever this has still not been done. Our strategy is the right one and has already had impressive results.
Parliament has called on both sides, the European Union and the future Member States, to make good use of the coming months, to keep up the pace and to mobilise all forces in the sprint to the finishing line, so as to ensure that the jointly set targets are achieved. I would like to join them in that call.
The same applies to enlargement and European integration as a whole. We also have to stand up for this Europe outside the institutions. Risks and problems must not be swept under the carpet. But, the fact remains that the greatest risk to the future peace and security of Europe, which is what we all want, the greatest risk would be to miss this historic opportunity to unite our continent because our courage failed us at the last minute.
I have referred on several occasions to the period from 2002 to 2004 as a window of opportunity. A window that is wide open but which could close again if we fail to make good use of the opportunity it offers us. We must not, under any circumstances, throw this opportunity away. Everything we have already achieved is at stake including, last but not least, confidence in both the European Union and the candidate countries.
Clearly, we are up against a head wind at the moment. A chill has set in, the sceptics agitating against Europe in general and enlargement in particular are becoming more vociferous, feeding on uncertainties, fears and prejudice. My view is that we should join forces to convince the citizens of Europe of the historic need for enlargement and allay their concerns. Since the Iron Curtain fell in Europe and in this globalised world, European integration is the only way to overcome the problems which are making people twitchy and causing them concern.
The point is, we need more Europe: for peace and security at home and abroad, for growth and employment, for environmental protection, for the highest possible social standards, for equal opportunities for all. The message must be unequivocal: European integration and enlargement are not the problem, they are a fundamental, inalienable part of the solution. We have the best arguments on our side.
The Europe of the past has left a trail of deep wounds and scars behind it. The generation in Europe whose towns were razed to rubble and ashes, who went hungry and experienced the misery of war, flight and persecution, is still alive. It is the generation which suffered under the most violent ideologies of the twentieth century.
Alongside the memory of this suffering, however, there is another memory still alive in Europe: the memory of good neighbourly relations, of public-spiritedness, of human decency, of resistance against inhumane systems and of individual bravery. There can be no doubt that, with very different nations living cheek by jowl, all with different memories and ways of life, Europe is a fragile continent. The wounds have closed, to be sure, but the scar tissue is thin and they still ache. The re-opening of the debate on the so-called Beneš decrees has made that clear."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"(Interjection from Mr Cohn-Bendit: like in the Ukraine!)"1
"(Interjection)"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples