Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-26-Speech-3-055"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060426.10.3-055"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I see the questions today as pertinent and important, because they reflect the general view that there are still concerns about justice, the rule of law and corruption in the two candidate countries under discussion.
Successive governments in Romania and Bulgaria have made superhuman efforts to comply with the advice and recommendations of the European Union. Much of this effort is not easy to see by outside observers. Structural, economic and social reforms are by their very nature unglamorous and not of any interest to the media. However, in Romania, for example, both the former Nastase government and the current Tariceanu government have shown remarkable commitment to the
as well as playing a steady hand in spite of the cut and thrust of national politics.
Legal reform and the fight against corruption have to be carried through very carefully in order to succeed, so they are always slow to bring results. If too many high-level politicians are sued it may begin to look like a witch-hunt. However, in Romania, Minister Monica Macovei, backed up by her Prime Minister and her President against considerable opposition within the system itself, has made dramatic steps.
In my view, to delay accession by one year would bring no real benefit to the European Union, Romania or Bulgaria or to their electorates, as one year is not a significant timeframe in accession terms and no significant reforms at all could be expected in such a short twelve months. However, it would send a very damaging signal to these two countries, both of which have bent over backwards to accommodate the Union’s advice and requirements in a spirit of real partnership and openness. The risk would be to alienate public opinion in these countries against the Union and that would risk us being seen as vacuous and vacillators.
Currently both countries are strongly pro-European Union. It would be a real shame to risk the high level of trust that those nations have shown – among both the governments and the people – being lost."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples