Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-11-Speech-2-183"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030311.8.2-183"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Just two further comments, for the Commissioner has answered almost all the questions in full.
I reiterate: this offer, this proposal, this political strategy does not mean accession for these countries, it does not mean that they will become members of the Union. It certainly does not imply that but nor does it exclude it. I would also, however, like to make it quite clear that I do not accept – or rather, I accept up to a certain point – the argument that the possibility of becoming a Member of the Union furthers the democratic process and the internal development of these countries. This gives me great pleasure, it is beneficial, but it is certainly not a sufficient basis on which to judge whether or not a country should become a Member of the Union.
Membership of the Union means sharing specific political objectives too, sharing roots and identities, sharing much more than just democratic sentiments. This was the point I made with regard to New Zealand. I have never said that New Zealand is more European than Ukraine. I merely said – and I will say it again – that, if we consider democratic criteria alone, there is no reason why New Zealand should not become part of the Union. However, there are geographical and historical considerations and political goals that a country must share in order to become a Member of the Union. It is therefore clear that this possibility must be conferred where these goals are identified and consolidated and are shared by ourselves as well as the countries involved. That is why I am anxious for the debate on the Union’s borders to be opened.
Lastly, I would like to reassure Mrs Flautre that the objective is precisely the opposite of creating detention centres for immigrants from these countries, which has rightly been identified as a dangerous course of action. There are different ethical considerations where immigration is concerned: cooperation with these countries would make it possible to deal with the issue of immigration more compassionately, more thoroughly, less traumatically and with greater involvement of the countries concerned. Clearly, this can only be achieved with the ring of friends, while we know that immigrants are now coming to Europe even from very distant countries. Having a group of countries with which we can cooperate on these sensitive issues too is extremely important, and it is, of course, our responsibility to ensure that this is achieved with due regard for the rights of the migrants. It is much easier to achieve this objective where there is cooperation than where such cooperation is lacking."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples