Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-07-09-Speech-3-294"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080709.32.3-294"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, we have to say that the previous enlargements of the European Union have been major political and economic successes. Of that there is no doubt. In the cases of Romania and Bulgaria, Commissioner, we shall certainly have separate discussions to conduct here in the coming weeks, but my opening remark remains generally valid.
Accordingly, even in the Western Balkans – though not in Croatia, where it would now be a totally illogical step – countries where accession would be a lengthier process could take advantage of this transitional stage, if they so wished, to use it as an instrument. They must be given the choice.
On this basis, ladies and gentlemen, I believe we should be able to reinforce the European perspective for use as an instrument in the area between membership and the neighbourhood policy and thereby widen the area of stability, peace and freedom in Europe without endangering the development potential of the European Union.
At the same time, we must make it clear that, when we negotiate with countries and promise them further negotiations, we keep those promises and that, when we bestow candidate status on a country, it is actually treated as a candidate country. The promises made in Thessaloniki must be honoured too.
At the same time, however, we must make it clear that this in no way implies an automatic sequence of events but that each individual country must fulfil the conditions – the Copenhagen criteria – for membership of the Union so that the transition is made successfully from the viewpoint of both the acceding countries and the European Union as a whole.
We must also consider whether, with our membership having risen to 27 countries – and perhaps Croatia will shortly become the 28th member – we do not now need a consolidation phase so as to ensure that everything in the European Union is actually put into proper working order. It is precisely those who pick holes in the Treaty of Lisbon while supporting enlargement who must realise that they are pursuing a politically inconsistent line. The Treaty of Lisbon, in fact, was intended as the prerequisite for the last round of enlargement, not as preparation for the next one. Those who seek enlargement but are opposed to the Treaty of Lisbon are actually working to eliminate the possibility of enlargement. That must be spelled out very clearly.
Another point of paramount importance we must appreciate is that strength does not depend on sheer size alone but that inner cohesion, by which I mean taking care not to overstretch our capacity, is a crucial factor, as history has taught us. The European Union we want is not a free-trade area but a politically effective unit. This means that our capacity for internal reform is just as much a prerequisite for enlargement as internal reform in applicant countries is a prerequisite for their accession. ‘Deepening and enlarging’ has become the standard description of this twofold process.
At the same time, we must be aware of the vital importance attaching to the European perspective for countries in the Western Balkans, but also for Ukraine and other countries, as a key to the success of their internal reform process in pursuit of more democracy and the rule of law, focusing their aspirations more sharply on Brussels than in any other direction.
In the circumstances I have described, however, this path will not lead to immediate full membership in every case, because these countries are not yet ready and because the Union is not yet ready either. In many cases full membership will not be an option.
For this reason we need new instruments in the area between full membership and the neighbourhood policy, so that these countries’ European perspective does not merely give them hope but is actually associated with real progress in areas such as free trade and the Schengen system. We need instruments modelled on the European Economic Area within which we engage in free trade with the EFTA countries, instruments that would allow partner countries to adopt 30, 50 or 70% of the body of established Community law and practice.
This means that negotiations on full membership could be very brief. Sweden, Austria and Finland took that route, while countries such as Switzerland, Iceland and Norway followed a different path. But who is aware today that Norway is a party to the Schengen Accords and that Switzerland contributes to the Union’s structural policy in the new Member States? In other words, we can develop very close relations, and then a decision can be taken in each case as to whether both sides want this close cooperation to continue on a permanent basis or whether they want it to be a transitional stage on the way to full membership."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples