Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-16-Speech-2-204"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060516.35.2-204"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr Barroso, Mr Rehn, firstly, I should like sincerely to thank Mr Rehn, whose work as Commissioner for Enlargement is appreciated by us all for its rigour, good sense and thoroughness. Thanks to him and to the work he has done, cooperation between the European Parliament and the Commission and between the European institutions and the Romanian and Bulgarian authorities has been effective and fruitful. The process of Romania’s and Bulgaria’s accession is now reaching a crucial stage: that at which our institutions have to take a decision confirming or, instead, postponing the date – initially set at 1 January 2007 – on which these two candidate countries are to join the European Union.
I endorse the spirit of Mr Rehn’s report. As in the past, the tendency is to favour accession in 2007, but accession subject to precise conditions. I have been pointing out for many months that our friendship for Romania and Bulgaria and our support for the process of their accession always goes hand in hand with a precise demand, namely that there be respect for the criteria and for the reforms needed if the countries concerned are to move towards accession. However, I would go further than Mr Barroso and Mr Rehn regarding the judgment to be made today concerning the outcome of the efforts made by these countries to respond to our demands. Indeed, I firmly believe that, only seven months before the anticipated accession date of 1 January 2007, it is our duty finally and clearly to confirm this date or say that it no longer applies. Moreover, I am now, unlike Mr Cohn-Bendit, entirely convinced that this date should be confirmed.
In expressing a more precise opinion on Romania in my capacity as European Parliament rapporteur, I have on several occasions had the opportunity to state that, in my opinion, the postponement clause should only be regarded as a last resort and emergency measure. I have on many occasions pointed out in this Chamber how dangerous it would be for us to trivialise this clause or to use it as a pretext for drawing attention to a variety of real concerns and one-off causes of dissatisfaction, so rather losing sight of the overall picture. I do not think that that is what is happening now.
The Commission’s report emphasises that Romania now satisfies the political criteria and those to do with the market economy and that the
has continued diligently to be applied, although, admittedly, there remain a number of points in relation to which the country will have to make further progress. The Commission’s recommendations in this connection are valuable and must be put into practice. However, the report published today leaves me feeling certain that the country’s current situation is not so significantly wanting that a measure as radical as a postponement of the accession date would be the appropriate response.
As for less serious concerns, the oral question that I submitted together with Mr van Orden and Mr Brok was designed to promote the other safeguard clauses of a quite different, and clearly less dramatic, nature. They offer the possibility of more continuous, sustained yet still very stringent monitoring, if need be accompanied by sanctions during the first three years following Romania’s accession to the European Union, and it would be the job of these clauses to respond to the various concerns that might remain regarding specific points. I also think it important to emphasise now what the cost would be of hesitating too long about giving a clear yes or no to Romania’s accession on 1 January 2007.
May was set as the deadline by which the European institutions had to take a decision on the date for Romania’s and Bulgaria’s accession, and that seemed wise to me. I still think it is wise. Postponing accession would present practical problems. The time allocated to ratifying the accession treaty would be restricted and would perhaps even be too short. The debate on enlargement would become still more tense. That is why, while keenly appreciating the rigour of the work done by the Commissioner for Enlargement and while concurring with his analyses and demands, I propose that we proceed on the basis of this work and of the very encouraging results that he emphasises and finally formulate our clear agreement to, and support for, Romania’s accession on 1 January 2007 on the conditions specified by the Commissioner."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples