Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-26-Speech-3-042"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060426.10.3-042"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, it was in April last year that this House considered the treaties relating to the accession of Romania and Bulgaria and resolved that it would agree to these treaties being signed, the meaning of which decision is that it is the will of this House that Romania and Bulgaria should become Member States of the European Union, and that the date named in the treaty is 1 January 2007. That is indeed the case and it is not open to question.
There are questions, however – not about membership itself, but about the date. These treaties explicitly state that May this year – the Commission has specified the 16th day of that month – is the deadline for consideration as to how the two countries have complied with the requirements of the European Union’s laws and the content of the accession treaties, not merely in terms of the laws they have decided to adopt, but also in terms of the implementation, the practical putting into effect, of them. In saying this, I am, of course, perfectly well aware that we cannot expect them to have done this 100%, for 100% could be achieved only in a perfect world, and that is not, in these countries, going to be achieved at once.
The question therefore arises as to whether critical mass has been achieved, and it is to that that we expect answers. I hope, Commissioner, that, in your speech, which we can expect in a moment, we will get closer to those answers. The question also arises as to whether the deadline of 31 December this year is sufficient to allow the necessary implementation to be carried out, or whether the two countries need another year. Is this a suitable occasion for applying the super-safeguard clause, or would it be more appropriate to go for another option, that being that the Commission and the Council should take their decisions not now, but rather in October, in order to give these countries a couple more months’ time for implementation? Is it, alternatively, conceivable, that – as is indeed possible up to three years following the two countries’ accession – individual chapters might be set aside as a result of the insufficient transposition in them of the treaty and the European Union’s legislation? Might there be, for this period too, a monitoring process to determine whether this is or is not the case? Those are the questions that arise.
It is quite clear to us from the report that you presented to this House on 3 April that there are issues relating to corruption and internal security, to organised crime and similar matters, as well as to certain aspects of the security of trade within the internal market. Has sufficient legislation been enacted in these areas? We can see, for example, that Bulgaria, is, only this week, taking legislative decisions relating to its justice system. Will it be possible for them to be implemented in a credible way by 16 May? These are questions that we have to consider objectively if this process is to be of benefit not only to the two countries in question, but also to the European Union.
I hope that you, Commission, will be able to help us in this respect. We do, in any case, believe that it is in the interests of both parties – the European Union and the candidates for accession, who will, in any event, join the European Union – that the treaties be complied with and properly put into effect before this happens."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples