Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-12-Speech-3-145"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020612.5.3-145"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I think it is well worth restating once again the historic significance, the political importance and the irreversible nature of the process of enlarging the Union. Having said that, I believe, when it comes to assessing the prospects for the process of enlarging the European Union with a view to the next European Council, that we must begin with the objectives we had set at the start of our Presidency so that we can then consider what we can expect of Seville in light of what has been achieved so far.
In other words, the Union has an objective that has the full support of Parliament: that accession should take place during 2004. As well as this general objective, the specific working programme of the Presidency for enlargement, which was presented to the Council last January, included a whole series of related tasks.
Firstly, compliance with the third requirement for accession which relates to the administrative and judicial capacity to effectively apply the acquis. Not much is said about this, but it is a very important issue. This is the famous so-called ‘Madrid criterion’ which is absolutely essential if enlargement is to work.
During this six-month period, the Commission has drawn up and implemented an action plan for each of the candidate countries and will present a report in this regard in Seville.
Furthermore, a group drawing up the Accession Treaty was scheduled to be set up during the Presidency, and it began its work in March. Together with the Commission and the Secretariat-General of the Council, we came up with the idea of beginning to think about a working group to draw up the Accession Treaty, so that the drawing up of its text and its relevant annexes should run parallel with the negotiations in order that, when the negotiations are concluded, we would not waste time drawing up the text of the Treaty, because we all know, Parliament in particular, the difficulties involved in the national ratification processes. We do not therefore have much time if we want to achieve our objective in 2004, especially in order to have everything ratified so that all the candidate countries can participate as full members in the elections to the European Parliament.
Therefore, we had that purpose – which, incidentally, we have fulfilled – and, as has been the case with previous presidencies, the Spanish Presidency has also paid particular attention to four specific cases, because it seems as if the ten countries designated for the first wave are the sole object of our enthusiasm, which is not true. We must pay attention to Bulgaria and Romania, two countries which have made less progress and to which we have to lend specific support in order to open as many negotiation chapters as possible, and we also wanted in some way to contribute to the efforts to find a definitive peaceful solution to the issue of Cyprus.
Finally, neither must we forget that somehow we must promote the pre-accession strategy with Turkey.
On the basis of these initial approaches, we must ask ourselves what we have achieved so far during our Presidency, since what we have done over these months will dictate how the situation and the perspectives between now and the end of the year are assessed by the coming European Council.
I am pleased to tell you, Mr President, that, with the invaluable help of the Commission – and I would like to pay homage publicly to Commissioner Verheugen, who is in charge of enlargement, who has been truly instrumental in all the progress we have made – the progress made during the Spanish Presidency can be summed up as follows: the Council, in its various guises, has begun to examine the notes presented by the Commission on 30 January on the general financial framework and agriculture, on which there was a clear lack of consensus.
The fundamental difference of opinion – and we are still negotiating in this regard – relates to the provision by the Union of direct agricultural aid to the candidate countries and the fact that this aid may, according to some countries, prejudice the future reform of the CAP.
As a result of these disagreements, we have not yet achieved a common position on the agriculture chapter; I would say we have achieved 95% of a common position, but there is still 5%, relating to direct aid on which we have yet to reach a consensus.
You will remember, Mr President, that in the debate we held this morning on the preparation of the Seville Council, I avoided dealing with enlargement issues, specifically so that we could reserve them for this debate, in which we are going to deal solely with those issues.
We are trying to promote a compromise formula because we understand the reasoning of the four countries which are blocking the common position, but we also believe those countries must understand that, in agriculture, there are certain fundamental principles relating to respect for the acquis, respect for equality between the member countries and the candidate countries and above all the fact that the ‘road map’ cannot be delayed. That is to say that all those countries which for certain reasons are hindering the adoption of the common position on direct aid will have to answer for their political responsibility before this Parliament – and I hope that you will demand it – and before public opinion, for not having made possible a common position which would finally conclude the entire ‘road map’ for the enlargement negotiations.
We are making efforts, we held a General Affairs Council on Monday, we are dealing with this issue today in Coreper; there will be another extraordinary Coreper on Friday; we are going to deal with the issue again at the General Affairs Council on the 17 June and, if necessary, we will have to take it to the European Council. We do not want the European Council to become a battlefield for these issues, but everyone must be aware that we have to make a collective effort to completely conclude the agriculture chapter; we cannot say that 95% is concluded and we will conclude the 5% on direct aid later. It cannot be delayed because it is a question of principle: we must accept the principle although the methods can be discussed later.
Following the first two negotiation conferences in March and April, and the ministerial meeting we have just held, with Commissioner Verheugen and myself, on Monday, and also with Mr Piqué, on Monday and Tuesday of this week, a total of 83 chapters have now been negotiated, of which 49 were provisionally concluded and another eight were opened. Furthermore, in April, for the first time we dealt with and concluded with certain candidates countries three of the four chapters which the road map assigned to the Spanish Presidency, that is, regional policy, financial and budgetary provisions and institutional provisions.
With regard to the fourth and final chapter, and no doubt the most complex, agriculture, the debate is ongoing in the Council, we have yet to reach a common position and therefore have not been able to conclude it. Our objective has been to reach a consensus, as I indicated previously in the General Affairs group of 10 June; it has not been possible and we are continuing with our efforts.
With regard to the countries which are most behind, with Bulgaria all the pending chapters have opened, while with Romania seven chapters have been opened, with just 6 still pending; I would like to inform the House that, together with the Commission, we expect to be able to make even more progress this month and certainly before the end of the Presidency, on 27 or 28 June, we are going to hold a new negotiation conference at Vice-President level and it is possible that we will be able to conclude more chapters with Romania and, naturally, conclude a few more other than the ones concluded at ministerial level. It is therefore very possible that the Spanish Presidency will end with the opening of all the chapters relating to Romania and with the conclusion of between 90 and 100 chapters with the rest of the candidate countries. Therefore, if we look at the general picture, as I said this morning, the majority of countries have concluded between 25 and 28 chapters; so if we consider that the number of chapters for negotiation is 31, in reality there will only remain 3 or 4 chapters per country to negotiate during the second half of this year, and they are final chapters which, as soon as we have a common position on agriculture and as soon as the Treaty of Nice is ratified, we will be able to conclude immediately since they are the institutional chapter and the financial chapter, which can be concluded very easily.
The committee drawing up the Treaty, which I mentioned earlier, has been working since 13 March on the technical adaptations and the legal details of the commitments agreed so far during the negotiations. We are leaving the Danish Presidency with a good legacy and we are making it possible for them to conclude the drawing up of the Accession Treaty by the end of the year.
With regard to Turkey, the Association Committee and Council met in January and April respectively. The most significant element was the adoption of a programme of meetings of the eight sub-committees charged with carrying out the detailed ‘pre-screening’ of its legislation, in accordance with the Laeken mandate.
The European Union has been insisting on the need to intensify the internal political reforms with a view to full compliance with the Copenhagen criteria. Ankara is reiterating its desire to establish in December a date for the start of accession negotiations, but clearly, however much good will it may have, the European Council cannot set dates for the start of negotiations until the Copenhagen criteria have been fully complied with. Our position will be very clear on this. We cannot act in any other way. This is not a case of wishful thinking, but it is an exercise that consists of truly applying the principles which all the institutions are attached to: the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament.
With regard to Cyprus, the ordinary negotiations have continued normally; I must say that Cyprus is an excellent candidate, the southern part of Cyprus, the Republic of Cyprus, is certainly the candidate for whom the greatest number of negotiation chapters are concluded and which has made the most progress in the negotiation. Naturally we are still monitoring the development of direct contacts between the leaders of both communities, the conversations which began in January between Mr Denktash and Mr Clerides, which have yet to yield tangible results.
I was in Cyprus myself last Thursday and on behalf of the Presidency I spoke at length with Mr Clerides and with Mr Denktash and we informed them of the Union’s position and of the importance we attach to the programme announced by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the importance of there being an agreement on the core issues, that is, on the issue of forms of government, property, territory and security. Some progress has been made but there have also been some dramatic setbacks in recent days, and therefore I have been there on behalf of the President of the Council, not only to send them a message – a message which will be expressed in some way in the Seville conclusions – but also to listen, so that the northern part of Cyprus can never accuse us of not having been sensitive to their arguments or of not having had time to listen to all their arguments, because, naturally, either party can be either right or wrong, but they each have their views and they deserve to be heard. I therefore believe we have done everything we can to assist the process and we have supported Álvaro de Soto, the representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in every way possible. We believe that things have gone well, but we have sent them a very clear message: we know that the objective of June which they had proposed and which the Secretary-General had confirmed has not been complied with, but we have told them that we cannot wait forever and that we need a clear political signal and that, before 24 October, when the Brussels European Council of the Danish Presidency takes place, the Union needs to see this agreement between the two parties, in order to include the whole issue of Northern Cyprus in the mainstream of the negotiations.
It is clear that the issue of enlargement is one of the fundamental subjects for the Seville European Council and I therefore believe that the information I am going to give will indicate the key elements of what the Presidency and the Council are going to propose to that Council.
In accordance with the Laeken mandate, the Seville European Council must also give its opinion on the report which the Commission is going to present on development and on its action plan for institutionally strengthening the candidate countries, and the General Affairs Council of 17 June will carry out an initial examination of that report, presented by the Commission on the 5th.
Also in relation to enlargement, the Spanish Presidency introduced for the first time in history the institutional innovation of allowing the candidate countries to participate actively in the Spring European Council – everybody remembers how they participated in the session, not only in the closing dinner, but also in the session itself. That offered the opportunity to visualise the new Union for the first time. We have seen, for the first time, a Council with 25 Members and furthermore within a concrete context that affects all of us and affects them, that is to say the Lisbon process.
Finally, I wanted to refer to the bilateral technical cooperation and assistance which has been carried out and intensified by the Member States with the candidate countries in order to prepare the latter for the application of the Community acquis. Not much is said about this, but we must bear in mind that the progress made, in all the programmes the Commission has implemented, essentially in the twinning programme – which is an extremely important programme, which is really worthy of a debate in this Parliament at some point; and in the ISPA and Sapard programmes there has been spectacular progress both in terms of the Union’s cooperation with these countries, and in terms of the bilateral cooperation of the candidate countries.
Given all these factors, and without prejudice to the results of the tour of the Spanish Prime Minister, which is taking place at the moment, we should be able to take the debate on enlargement at the coming Seville European Council much further.
While waiting for the General Affairs Council to adopt a Resolution, the European Council will examine a note to the Presidency on the state of the negotiations which will serve as a basis for the debate in the European Council. By way of illustration, that project could be based around the following elements: firstly, the recognition of the considerable progress made so far during the various presidencies; we can say that during the Spanish Presidency we have reached a point at which the negotiations are practically finished from a technical point of view.
We have fulfilled the road map and this has allowed the Commission and the Council to bring all 30 chapters with the first ten Laeken countries to the table; the negotiations have entered the final straight. It is now reasonable to expect that the Danish Presidency may, in accordance with the wishes of Parliament and the European Council, conclude the negotiations by the end of December.
As I have said, we have now begun to draw up the Accession Treaty and it can now enter a final drawing-up process following the Copenhagen European Council. I do not believe that a fourth period will be necessary, because its drawing-up is now at an advanced stage. The Council will refer to the adoption of common positions both on those chapters pending from previous Presidencies and on those which are more complex in terms of their budgetary implications. Naturally, the specific financial aspects will be looked at at a later date, at the end of the negotiations, as is always the case. We shall reiterate the general principle that any solutions must conform to the current acquis and the Berlin financial framework. Let there be no doubt that this is extremely important. We also require a constructive and realistic approach aimed at concluding the negotiations with the ten candidates so that they can also demonstrate that they are fully prepared to take on their obligations.
There will be an assessment of the report to be presented by the Commission on the development of its action plans for the administrative and judicial strengthening of the candidate countries with a view to effective application of the acquis. In relation to Bulgaria and Romania, we must recognise the significant progress made during this six-month period, reiterate the principle of inclusivity in the enlargement process and commit ourselves to fully supporting their preparation efforts.
With regard to Turkey, the European Union should encourage the Ankara Government to intensify its reform efforts and express its conviction that that would help to consolidate its accession ambitions. Meanwhile, the Council would invite the Commission to present concrete measures including, where relevant, additional financial assistance aimed at strengthening the pre-accession strategy for Turkey in line with the rest of the candidate countries. Furthermore, the Council will encourage Turkey to use its influence to promote a speedy solution to the issue of Cyprus.
And, specifically, on the issue of Cyprus, the European Council will urge the two parties to continue the direct talks between Denktash and Clerides and will encourage them to take this opportunity to find a definitive and global solution as soon as possible, as I said, before 24 October if possible, under the auspices of the United Nations.
At the beginning of the Presidency we presented a working programme entitled ‘More Europe’; that document naturally included the enlargement of the European Union as one of our fundamental priorities, or more than a priority, one of the Union’s fundamental objectives.
In its capacity as a Member State, a unified Cyprus will have to speak with one voice and this is an issue which we will stress in particular; that is to say, a future shape of the State of Cyprus is something for them to decide, but we have to make something very clear: any type of State that they decide on between the two communities must be a unified State which speaks with one voice and which is able to apply the Community acquis
in a uniform manner, both in the North and in the South. Of course the European Union, as stated by the Commission, which has set aside additional funds, has committed itself to contributing to the economic development of the northern part of the island, if the negotiations bear fruit.
Apart from dealing with all these issues, I believe that the European Council must now begin to discuss the new ‘road map’, the political one. In other words, the technical part is finished, or is being finished, and now we must look to the future, to see what will happen in 2003 when everything is concluded, to say what plan we have for the signature and ratification of the Treaty, to send a clear message to the national parliaments that this issue is urgent, to see how the candidate countries can participate in a future Intergovernmental Conference, to see how they can participate in the European Parliament elections, in a nutshell, to see how, in a political sense, all the results of the negotiations can be put into practice in accordance with the programme which we have drawn up and the ideas we have re-affirmed so many times in this House and also in the European Council.
Mr President, this is a summary of the outlook which is of course approximate, since I cannot anticipate what the Heads of State and Government are going to say. I can only present what the Spanish Presidency is going to put before them. But I believe that, apart from any modifications they might make, this will be in general terms what the European Council will say on enlargement.
I hope that what I have said on behalf of the Presidency will be a final contribution to the debate in Parliament today on the basis of so many reports, the authors of which – Brok, Böge, Sommer, Turco, Görlach and Olsson – I congratulate on behalf of the Presidency, since they have been extremely useful in terms of clarifying our ideas about what we need to do within the enlargement chapter.
I would finally like to thank the Commission for the support they have given us at all times, right from the beginning of our Presidency.
It stated that the Presidency’s objective was to contribute decisively to concluding the negotiations with all the candidate countries which are prepared by the end of the second half of 2002, thereby following up on the conclusions of the previous European Councils of Gothenburg and Laeken. More specifically, our main task consisted of achieving common positions between the 15 countries on the most complex chapters of the acquis, that is to say, those which fall to us according to the ‘road map’, those which are most significant from a financial and budgetary point of view.
According to the famous road map agreed in Nice, those chapters – which have fallen to the Spanish Presidency – are agriculture, regional policy and the financial and budgetary provisions, to which we can add another sensitive chapter, which is not sensitive financially, but because of its highly political nature; the issue of the institutions.
In parallel, we thought that we were going to proceed to the provisional conclusion of all those chapters pending at the beginning of the six-month period because – as you and the House know, Mr President – Spain was not only faced with the ‘road map’, but also with a huge number of euphemistically named ‘leftovers’, which in fact are unfinished negotiations, extremely important negotiations, which remained following the Swedish and the Belgian Presidencies.
Two fundamental principles must continue to inspire and underpin the entire negotiation process and they are that the negotiations should be carried out on the basis of the current acquis
and that the financial perspectives approved in Berlin in 1999 will have to determine the upper limits for the accession of the new Member States between now and 2006.
In this negotiation we also tried to prevent any overlapping or interference by the enlargement process with any possible reforms of the common policies, because if we try to make the reform of common policies conditional upon enlargement we will risk creating a delay with regard to the scheduled timescales."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples