Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-16-Speech-2-245"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20060516.35.2-245"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spoken text
". Mr President, it is not a question of my timetable, but of media deadlines in Bulgaria and Romania. I trust you will be sympathetic to this excuse, because we have to get the right message across tonight to both Bulgaria and Romania, where we are heading with President Barroso immediately after this sitting to pass on the message of encouragement. We shall be rolling up our sleeves to tackle the remaining shortcomings. Our goal is the accession of Bulgaria and Romania in 2007 and our duty is to see that both countries join when they meet the conditions and are fully prepared to join the European Union. This is also a matter of the famous absorption capacity of the European Union. That is the best way to make the enlargement a success for Bulgaria, Romania and Europe. I trust that you will support the Commission in this objective. I would like to thank you for a very constructive and responsible debate, which also reflects the wide range of views in European civil society. That is, of course, the role of Parliament. In this debate I sense overall support for the Commission’s basic approach, which is that the target accession date of January 2007 should be possible, on condition that the countries can address the remaining shortcomings. Yes, some are more in favour than others and opinions differ as to the conditions, but the overall tone of the debate has been very clear and I can say that the Commission is in favour of the target and of sticking strictly to the conditions. In order to have a real dialogue, I would like to comment on the points raised in various speeches. First of all, it has been said that the conditions that remain must be achievable. I fully agree with that. We would not propose a final review of whether the conditions have been met in October if we did not believe that it is feasible for the countries to meet the remaining criteria. At the same time, it is clear that, as guardian of the treaties, we cannot recommend something that does not exist. We have to see that the conditions are really fulfilled, especially in the field of terrorism and the fight against corruption and organised crime. Otherwise, we would not be up to our task. Secondly, there has been a request for a concrete ‘to-do’ list or scoreboard for the countries so that they know what is expected of them. I agree. This is included in the Commission’s report and both countries are fully aware of the expectations and of the remaining criteria. That is precisely why President Barroso and I are going to Bucharest and Sofia today and tomorrow. We shall discuss what is expected of both Bulgaria and Romania. Moreover, we have to trust in the political maturity of the governments, parliaments and administrations of these countries for them to know what the Copenhagen political and economic criteria and the criteria mean, and plan their roadmaps of reform on the basis of these well-established criteria, which form the basis of our crystal clear report. I can give you a very precise example of one area in which we and Bulgaria and Romania have an interest in the countries fulfilling the conditions by the accession date, and that is that Community money should be properly spent and accounted for, which, I trust, is close to the heart of this House – at least it was when I was a member of the Committee on Budgetary Control. Bulgaria needs to establish the integrated administration and control system in agriculture in order to implement the provisions and funding of the common agricultural policy. This means that it needs to take aerial photographs of all the parcels of land, digitise them and block them into a system that links them to the owners. If this is not done, I am afraid we will have to withhold direct payments under the common agricultural policy. This should work as a very strong incentive to redress this shortcoming. I hope this example is concrete enough, but I could give you dozens of other precise examples of what still needs to be done in various areas of the Union’s policy and . Finally, Mr Van Orden said that no reference was made in the Commission’s report to the recommendation of a possible postponement, which is one of the provisions of the accession treaty. To avoid any confusion or misunderstanding, this compels me say that in fact, in the conclusion of the Commission’s report adopted just three hours ago, we say that by early October we shall assess whether the two countries have been able to address the remaining shortcomings and on that basis we shall adopt a position as to whether the proposed accession date can be adhered to. This means, in clear English or other Community languages, that the Commission reserves the right to consider the use of this safeguard clause of postponement unless the shortcomings are addressed in the next five months, which is, as I said, fully achievable for both countries if they really make an effort."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph