Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-10-25-Speech-2-189"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051025.20.2-189"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am grateful for this excellent, high-quality debate, well worthy of this issue. I appreciate the responsible way in which Parliament is handling enlargement policy, and I would like to continue the close, concrete and very viable partnership we have. Unfortunately, I cannot answer all the numerous questions that have been put in connection with this matter. I hope that we will be able to continue the dialogue in the Committee, and bilaterally in the form of urgent questions and oral debate. I will concentrate for now on two or three of the most important questions which have come up in this discussion.
There has been an emphasis in several of the speeches on how important it is for the legal system to function properly, and in fact the practical implementation of the legal system, which is to say the reform of the prosecution and court systems and specifically the effective adoption of these reforms, is absolutely essential for the preparations for accession. This is directly linked to the fight against corruption and organised crime. These reforms must therefore take absolute priority, be the first priority, not least because the influence they have will extend to all areas of life and society, whether it is a matter of access to health services or the corporate business environment. I would like generally to stress the importance of implementation with regard to legal systems as well as other areas. The time for devising strategies and drafting action programmes is over. They are in quite good shape. Now we need practical results: it is time for actions rather than words.
The most challenging questions in the area of Community policy are agriculture and the treatment of animal diseases. Both countries need to achieve standards that guarantee food safety throughout the EU. Inspections at external borders also need to be improved. On the other hand, there are also examples of good practice in this area: the reaction of the authorities to avian flu in both Romania and Bulgaria was positive. It was swift, efficient and professional, and was therefore encouraging for the future.
Some Members asked about genetically modified organisms. I am fully aware that genetically modified soya is grown in Romania. On the other hand, we have to consider that EU legislation will be applied in this area from the time of accession. As this soya production is not strictly on European Union soil at present, it is not a matter of contravention of EU law. If, at the point when Romania joins the Union, the EU has not permitted the production of genetically modified soya, Romania will simply have to obey EU legislation and destroy the soya crop. The Commission will be following this closely, and I can assure you that the situation will be under control.
The monitoring mechanism that we adopted in its improved form a year ago is yielding results. A good example is the reform of the legal system referred to and competition and state subsidy policy in Romania. These have moved from the category of serious matters of concern to one where work with a clear objective is still needed. The Commission will continue its close monitoring of Bulgarian and Romanian preparations. Before the report is drafted in April or May, the Commission will undertake tours of inspection with experts from the Member States to assess the most worrying areas of dissatisfaction.
In conclusion, I would like to say that the best service we could do Bulgaria and Romania and the citizens of these countries is to keep to the terms of accession. Accordingly, these reports will point out not only the progress that has been achieved but, first and foremost, the flaws that are still apparent, thus ensuring that these countries and their governments receive support for their reform policies. Conditionality policy therefore acts as a force to change society, and that lies at the heart of enlargement policy.
Comparisons to football have been made in this Chamber. Mr Lagendijk started this and, as he thinks of himself as the incarnation of Johan Cruyff, no doubt for very good reason, I could probably say finally that, instead of a
type hedgehog defence for Bulgaria and Romania, it is now worth putting some effort into an aggressive, all-embracing soccer match in the reform policies of both countries. Now is not the time for passivity, but for activity and determination."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"catenaggio"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples