Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-12-Speech-3-148"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020612.5.3-148"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the Commissioner and the Commission as a whole, but also the Spanish Presidency, for the very positive progress made in the negotiations in recent months. After talks with the future Presidency, I hope that the road map originally devised by this House can be adhered to, because the political will is there. I think that as Parliament, we must attach great importance to ensuring that appropriate pressure is brought to bear. As Mr Ramón de Miguel has rightly pointed out, a solution must be found in agriculture too, since there will be no chances later. There is no excuse for delays.
Mr President, Commissioner, I support your positions on this issue wholeheartedly, for this is a matter of historical significance. I would also like to endorse what was said before. There is no attempt to use issues of history as new combat instruments in the European Union; instead, we must ensure that we learn from history to prevent the suffering, expulsions, murders and wars which occurred in the past from ever happening again, and we must capitalise on the unique opportunity afforded to us through the unification of our entire continent. From the Coal and Steel Community to European integration, the goal has always been to end the cycle of violence, not to settle old scores. The cycle of violence in Europe must cease once and for all. The objective is not to abolish the nation-state – the nation-state will retain its identity – but to water it down in such a way that it is never again able to wage war against others. This is why the legal order established by the European Union is our continent's future.
This also applies in many other areas which the Commissioner mentioned, such as institutional issues. We must put our house in order, whether this is achieved through the ratification of the Treaty of Nice or by other means. This is the homework which we have to do. Whether or not it involves a common position in the Council on agricultural policy, budgetary issues or institutional issues, we have an obligation in this regard. This must not be used as a reason for delaying the enlargement process, for this would meet with incomprehension in the accession countries. We cannot allow a further delay which is due to our own failings. Similarly, of course, we must assess the accession candidates by what they have achieved.
As things stand at present, we have thirteen candidate countries; we are negotiating with twelve of them, and ten have a chance of concluding the negotiations this year. In my view, we should thus be in a position to conduct the negotiations in a way which makes this possible. That means – as the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy makes very clear in its report – that we must not invent any new conditions, whether they are imposed either by the European institutions or by the Member States. The basis for negotiations is the acquis communautaire, not whatever else might be desirable. We cannot make additional demands. These can only be formulated in a political process which involves the future Member States; they cannot be a condition for accession.
Sometimes we must conduct our debates in this house in frank terms as well. When I look at some of the motions tabled by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, they are all very commendable, like some of the other motions. I can even endorse them politically. However, they have absolutely no relevance to the theme of "negotiations on the adoption of the acquis communautaire". The only issue of relevance is the acquis communautaire. If the environment chapters are closed, for example, we should not reopen them because we think that a particular road or canal should not be built in a particular country, which is the thrust of some of these motions, if my analysis is correct. In my view, we ourselves should be precise, honest and coherent here so that progress is achieved.
By adopting this approach, however, this also means that the accession candidates must understand that each individual country will be assessed on its own merits to determine whether it is able to fulfil the conditions. We recognise that ten of them have the chance to do so. We also recognise that they are in a position to achieve the smooth functioning of the internal market, fulfil the political criteria and achieve legislative compliance with the acquis communautaire at the same time.
We will also, though, have to look very carefully at which countries are able to guarantee judicial and administrative compliance by 2004 when accession takes place. This is a key issue. On these issues, too, no political discounts can be granted.
We must ensure that this is accepted and enforced appropriately. In the same way, we have a request – for it can be no more than that – to countries which will be part of the first round. We would ask them not to take an 'I'm all right, Jack' attitude once they are part of the European Union. In other words, they must not take the view that the boat is full after their accession and possibly veto other countries which are scheduled to join in the second round. We should also ensure, in political terms, that candidates which are not part of the first round do not face additional hurdles.
The Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, which is the committee responsible for this policy field, is deeply concerned about a number of problems. We see that in some areas, minority issues have still not been resolved. Corruption and organised crime are still major problems. We attach priority to compliance with the Schengen criteria, because it is also important to make clear to our own citizens that no additional insecurity is being created here. In my view, we must also recognise that Kaliningrad must not be a reason for enlargement to fail. However, we must also recognise that the sovereignty of Poland and Lithuania must be accepted, and that an alternative solution must be found, for I see the corridor option as being unacceptable for both legal and historical reasons. There are so many practical ways of satisfying Russia's justified concerns. I believe that here, too, we will find an appropriate solution, just as I believe, on a general note, that only Members of the European Union and the various accession candidates have a right to decide who should join the EU. This is my response to the Cyprus issue as well.
When we discuss issues of discrimination etc. in relation to enlargement, we must also ensure that it is made clear that all citizens of this European Union are equal. There must be no discrimination, either against nationals of EU states or against citizens living in the European Union. This is the only aspect of the debate about the Beneš decrees which interests me. Our task is not to examine the past from a legal perspective, but to ensure that no discrimination arises as a result of the current application of the law. I believe that this should be possible for a country under the rule of law, and if my reading of the Verheugen-Zeman paper is correct, I see opportunities to achieve openings and agreements here too."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples