Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-09-Speech-3-011"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021009.4.3-011"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today's recommendation by the Commission that the negotiations on accession should be concluded with ten candidates by the end of this year is perhaps the most important staging-post on the road towards the completion of what is currently the major project on the European Union's agenda. There is only one justification for our recommendation today – the ten countries have earned it! The ten countries have succeeded, through their own efforts, in meeting the incredibly difficult and challenging criteria for accession to the European Union. I attach great importance to the comment that the Commission did not see it as its task to justify a desirable political accession scenario 'after the fact'.
Secondly, at the European Council meeting in Brussels in a few days' time, the Member States must come to an agreement on the common negotiating positions which are still open. I was a little concerned, when returning from the Council of Economics and Finance Ministers in Luxembourg yesterday, about the complete lack of movement there. The Member States too must now be urged to show the necessary flexibility and willingness to compromise. If the timeframe is to be adhered to, we need to reach an agreement in Brussels on the financial package and institutional issues.
Thirdly, the candidate countries must continue their work and continue their efforts. In doing so, they will undoubtedly be heartened by the Commission's recommendations today and by our debate here this afternoon.
Finally, let me say a few words about Bulgaria and Romania. I am gratified by the progress made by these two countries. We did not decide that Bulgaria and Romania would not be included in the first round of enlargements. It is their own decision. They said that they wanted to be part of the process in 2007, and all the commitments which they have undertaken during the negotiations relate to 2007, not 2004. The Commission solemnly pledges to do all it can to help these two countries achieve this goal. The current enlargement process will not be complete until Bulgaria and Romania also have Members representing them in this House.
Finally, let me comment briefly on Turkey as well. I take issue with the people who say that the Helsinki strategy was a mistake. On the contrary, it is apparent that since the Helsinki strategy came into effect around 18 months ago, Turkey has made more progress on human rights, democracy and the rule of law during these 18 months than in the previous five decades. We should – and we do – recognise this fact.
Turkey, however, could not be expected to fulfil all the political criteria for entry to the accession negotiations within these 18 months. I do not wish to imply any criticism of Turkey when I say that it has not yet fulfilled all the criteria. On the contrary, I think it is remarkable that Turkey has achieved so much in such a short time. This is why Turkey must be encouraged to continue along this road, and the Commission will put forward suitable proposals to ensure that Turkey can continue along this road and the door remains open for Turkey.
Let us not be distracted from the real task, however, namely to reform the country in such a way that it is ready for EU accession. Let us not be distracted from this task, and let us not enter into a fruitless statistical debate whose outcome is bound to be unproductive.
Today's outcomes will be received in many countries of Europe with great interest, excitement and hope. Our task now is to ensure that Europe's citizens do not just understand but wholeheartedly endorse and welcome this project. There is still considerable scepticism surrounding this issue in many Member States, and this should not take us unawares. My impression is that the scepticism is often greatest in those areas where there is a serious lack of information. It is extremely important to ensure, over the coming months, that we supply people with information, information and more information and enable them to use the range of information productively. If this does not take place, we may have a very, very nasty surprise in a whole range of countries just as enlargement becomes the central issue on the domestic agenda, if people turn round to us – after the Treaty is concluded, at the very latest – and say: 'Why weren't we told about this? Why did you do this without us?' Involving the citizens is the key task facing us now.
What we did see as our task was to provide you, the Members of the European Parliament, the Council and the Member States, with neutral and objective information showing which countries are ready and prepared for accession and the conditions under which this will take place. The progress reports were not produced on the basis of political stipulations. The Commission staff were given just one instruction: they were not to conceal, omit or prettify anything, and they were to indicate clearly where problems still exist. In our reports, we identify the problems by name. However, the key point here is that we have not identified a single problem which could not be solved by the end of 2003.
Please do not be misled by the sometimes very critical tone. Of course, the issues which have still to be resolved must be put into the context of what has already been achieved, and if we look at what has been achieved in the accession countries over the last ten years in the transformation process and the preparations for accession, I must say that the progress made by the people in these countries is a truly magnificent and historic achievement which deserves our greatest respect.
The Commission has developed a methodology which allows us to determine, as precisely as possible, where we are and what has still to be done. The Commission has also made a number of proposals concerning the ongoing monitoring of the commitments undertaken and the introduction of a safeguard clause in the Accession Treaty. Let me explain this in a little more detail. First of all, I must point out that our recommendation naturally contains something of a prognostic element. After all, the new Member States are not obliged to meet the criteria for membership today; they must do so at the time of accession. In other words, what we have to do today is to assess whether the remaining tasks can be completed within the timeframe. This assessment is not based on a feeling or mood; it is based on sound knowledge of the pace and quality of the preparation process in these countries.
We will continue to apply all the tried and tested monitoring instruments
after the conclusion of the negotiations and the conclusion of the Treaty, in order to ensure that all the commitments undertaken are fulfilled. We propose that for the first two years after accession, an entirely new clause should be introduced into the Treaty, one which has never appeared in any other enlargement treaty to date. This clause will ensure that rapid and targeted measures can be taken if it becomes apparent, within the first two years of accession, that the internal market is disrupted in any area, or if policies are not working properly in any area relating to the internal market. In this context, the phrase 'internal market' should be interpreted in the broadest possible terms; in other words, it relates to all policies with a cross-border dimension.
I do not believe that this clause is necessary because the candidate countries pose a risk – they do not. I believe that this clause is necessary because this enlargement is quite unlike any other we have previously experienced and – if we are honest – we cannot tell precisely which adjustment problems are likely to occur within the first two years. This is why it is necessary to have an instrument enabling us to respond quickly and flexibly. I also think it is necessary in terms of the public debate in our Member States.
Before we get to the stage of being able to welcome Members from ten new countries to our plenary here, several important steps must be taken. First of all, the Treaty of Nice must be ratified, and I would like to take this opportunity to appeal to the voters of Ireland and ask them to consider, when they make their decision, that what is at stake here is the European future of nations in Europe. What is at stake is the European future of nations which did not voluntarily dissociate themselves from the European unification process, but which were forced to do so, which were forced to live separated from us behind the Iron Curtain, and which now wish to belong, once and for all, to the family of democratic nations in Europe"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples