Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-04-Speech-3-056"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021204.3.3-056"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Thank you for another useful and constructive dialogue on enlargement. The debate confirms that there is massive support for what is happening next week. I would extend my thanks for all the good advice that has been given, on which I shall make a few comments. I should like to thank Mr Poettering for putting the Copenhagen European Council into exactly the right perspective from the outset. Without repeating what he said, it is this historical perspective that we must keep in view the whole time. The thanks given to the Presidency are also due to the Commission, especially Mr Verheugen, who has now been working tirelessly on this for years.
Lastly, I wish to say to the President that the Presidency looks forward to seeing him and the Conference of Presidents in Copenhagen directly before the summit. There we can continue the dialogue we have had all along on these difficult but also rewarding issues that are common to the three institutions.
(
)
I fully agree with Mr Titley. I do not know about ‘now or never’, but in any case it is time for action. It must succeed. Despite the difficult problems that remain, we have come so far that we cannot justify failure.
As regards Cyprus, I fully agree with Mr Verheugen. The EU and the international community must declare in plain terms their readiness to give the necessary assistance to meet the great challenges reunification will present to Cyprus and its two communities. We must do everything we can to ensure that the UN Secretary-General's endeavours to find a solution ahead of Copenhagen meet with success.
Concerning Turkey, the basis is clear. Turkey is a candidate. The accession negotiations can commence when the Copenhagen criteria have been met. They have not been, but Turkey has made impressive progress with the far-reaching reform package. In Copenhagen, a strong and positive signal will be sent to the Turkish politicians and population. The precise form this signal will take is to be discussed in detail by the Heads of State and Government. I agree with Mr Poettering that this is not the main subject for Copenhagen. The ten countries will take centre stage there. We shall not forget the prospect of Turkey, however, neither shall we forget Bulgaria and Romania. These two countries have made tremendous progress in their accession negotiations, but are not ready yet. They will be given a roadmap for the last stretch of the way.
I wish to thank the President of the Commission for his support for the content of the packages that the Presidency has presented to the ten countries, and I wish to thank Mr Verheugen for his word of caution against overloading the agenda for Copenhagen with all sorts of other issues. He knows better than anyone how difficult and complicated the enlargement process is, and he knows the danger of entering into detailed discussions on the individual packages at the Copenhagen Summit.
My thanks to the many people who have expressed their support for keeping within the expenditure ceilings set out at Berlin and Brussels. I also wish to thank all of those who have said that we should not argue over small amounts at this decisive historic juncture. I must, however, advise against suggestions that we should discuss whether we can add another couple of billions to the amount set out in the ten packages. The art is not to have opinions and make suggestions. The art is to gain a majority, to obtain everyone’s support, and there are, of course, countries who think that the packages put together by the Danish Presidency are already too generous. We must keep in mind that the art is to reach a consensus, or, in other words, to put the finishing touches to the packages in Copenhagen.
Mr Barón Crespo and others are right in saying that it would be best if the new countries had Commissioners with proper portfolios from the outset, and if Parliament could hold new elections in time to approve a new Commission. This would mean that the MEPs from the new Member States could play a part in approving the Commissioners from their countries. This is not as easy as it sounds, however. A new election date could help; and we
tried to arrange this, but without success. The Presidency is willing, but we are afraid that it will not be possible. If this is the case, it is good that we have another solution, one that may not be perfect, but is tolerable for all parties.
I believe that the Council has now stated – and in any case I have stated four or five times here in Parliament on behalf of the Council – that the new countries will be put on a completely equal footing with the old Member States at the Intergovernmental Conference, where a new treaty is to be adopted. This is not something I have made up; it is in Article 23 of the Treaty of Nice. It would be entirely unreasonable for us to offer the new countries, who are perhaps about to hold referendums, a different status from the old Member States, when their populations are to say ‘yes’ to a new treaty. In a way, it is bad enough that they have to accept a treaty that we are in the process of amending. If they are not placed on an even footing with us when the amended treaty is to be adopted, then I do not think that we are treating them properly.
Finally, I wish to give my support to something that many have expressed. None of the applicant countries will have to wait for any of the others. If only nine applicant countries are ready, they will join. It is important, therefore, that the applicant countries, too, remember to strike while the iron is hot, or Mr Titley’s prediction might come true."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples