Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-26-Speech-3-049"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060426.10.3-049"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, the central question in this debate is what is now the best way of ensuring that the reforms, particularly in the area of justice and in the fight against corruption and organised crime, are sustained beyond 2007. How, in the Commission’s view, is this best to be guaranteed? What do we think? Should we keep 2007 as the date, or should we move the accession to 2008 after all?
My group is still as united as ever in its support for further enlargement of the European Union. If, in future, the Western Balkan countries or Turkey meet the conditions, then, as far as we are concerned, they are most welcome to join. Nevertheless, if we take that as our starting point, there are two different possible answers to this central question. There are those in my group who claim that it is precisely because we are so strongly in favour of this enlargement that we should be extra critical and check whether the countries actually meet the conditions at the start of the accession process, so that neither the EU nor its enlargement strategy lose credibility.
If we then look at Romania and Bulgaria, with all the differences that exist between those countries, we have to conclude that, at the moment – and I would make a point of saying this – they do not meet a number of the prescribed conditions, and that we can justifiably be sceptical about whether they will make the grade in eight months’ time, on 1 January 2007. That is why some of my group think it justified that the pressure should be kept on until the very last minute, until 1 January 2008, in order to guarantee that all countries meet those criteria.
Others in my group, among whom I would include myself, believe that there is a clear difference between Romania and Bulgaria. Looking back on last year in Bulgaria, we have noticed that reforms are taking place at a superficial level, that implementation is limited, that reforms are being introduced more slowly, and that some vital ones were not carried out until the very last moment.
Looking at Romania, on the other hand, it is evident, not only to us in this House, but also – or so it appears from their reports – to many national and international NGOs and experts, that that rate has gone up and that there is definitely tangible progress, not only on paper but also in practice. Judges and public prosecutors feel free at long last, free from the burden of political influence. There are real guarantees of an independent campaign against corruption, and, fortunately, a number of initiatives have been taken in respect of cases of it in high places. That is why it is also justified to reward this tangible progress in Romania by saying that we abide by the accession date of 2007 but – and I am saying this to Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck – only provided that there is a strong monitoring mechanism in place, not in the general sense as the Commissioner suggested, but specifically in the areas of justice, reform and the fight against corruption.
It is in that area that we believe it to be necessary to monitor those positive developments even beyond the accession date, and we think that, in the unlikely event of those developments not being sustained, there should be financial implications. The message we want to send by this to the people of the EU, but also to candidate countries such as Croatia and Turkey, is that if you really try your best to carry out reforms, you will be rewarded for this as a candidate Member State. If, on the other hand, you believe that the EU will look the other way, you will be penalised."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples