Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-03-15-Speech-3-234"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060315.21.3-234"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the Commission, in its document, is not mincing its words: while there will be no fresh enlargement round involving a large group of countries at the same time, it is arguing – and rightly so, I believe – that the European Union is, and indeed will be, an organisation that remains open to new members, but under certain conditions. Whilst the addition of ten new countries in 2004 was a success, not all citizens see it that way. An extra effort to recount this success story is therefore called for.
On behalf of the group, I can say that we support the thrust of the Brok report, and I would thank him for the interesting preparation round we have been involved in over the past few months. The Social Democrats are emphatically in favour of the extra attention that is being devoted to the criterion of absorption capacity. The
surrounding the ratification of the Constitutional Treaty plays an important role in this. Without internal reforms, it will be difficult to steer the accession of new Member States effectively.
As expressed in previous resolutions, we take the view that the Treaty of Nice is not a basis for new decisions on accession. There is, however, more need for more clarity surrounding the concept of absorption capacity, as laid down in the Copenhagen criteria, and the report is right to devote attention to this aspect too.
I should like to take this opportunity to outline where the Social Democrats stand in respect of the possible accession of various countries. As far as our easterly neighbours Ukraine and Moldova are concerned, we think that now is not the right time to discuss their accession. Instead, we should invest in practical cooperation. We have concluded action plans with those countries, and we should try to bring them to a successful end.
With regard to the Balkans, we back the Council’s position. In principle, the western Balkan countries hold out the prospect of membership, although they will join at different times. As for Turkey, as far as we are concerned, we will continue on the chosen path. We are on the eve of starting a process that will last many years, and it is extremely important that we hold firm to the pledge, but also to the conditions, that we prescribed in this connection.
While I am on the subject of the Balkans, I should like to add that, whilst it goes without saying that the Copenhagen criteria remain of vital importance to us, the Socialist Group in the European Parliament continues to set great store by cooperation with the Yugoslavia tribunal as a criterion. I also think – and there has been much talk about it – that regional cooperation can make a significant contribution to the
of those countries to the European Union.
Finally – and this may well be the most important point of the whole discussion – the report mentions the possibility of setting up a fresh multilateral framework for European countries that have not yet joined the European Union. For some countries, that could be an alternative to membership, while for others, this could be an intermediate step towards it. For Ukraine and Moldova, for example, a structure of that kind could be a sound follow-up step, but for the countries that are already recognised as potential members, I would stress that this is an option, and not an obligation.
This is also how it is set out quite clearly in the Brok report. It is something for which those countries can opt, should they decide that it would be useful to them to do so. It is not an alternative to the prospect of membership. That applies to Turkey as well as to the Balkan countries. I want to stress that this is how we interpret paragraph 10 of the draft resolution. It is in that way, and no other, that we in the Committee on Foreign Affairs have reached agreement with the rapporteur."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples