Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-16-Speech-3-151"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000216.9.3-151"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank you all very much indeed for this debate, which all in all I have found to be encouraging and supportive, and it has also shown that there is a great deal of support in this House for the policy of the Member States and that of the Commission. However, I would be more than pleased to elucidate a few points as requested.
I will turn firstly to matters pertaining to headings 4 and 7. It is quite simple: a special heading, namely, the famous heading 7, was created in Berlin, as part of the large Agenda 2000 package, for the applicant countries of Eastern and Central Europe, which are currently undergoing a process of transformation, and for these countries alone. Malta, Cyprus and Turkey were not provided for at this stage. Mrs Schroedter described this as a lack of coherence. She ought perhaps to take some time to ask the erstwhile President-in-Office of the Council, who is not exactly a stranger to you, how this presumed lack of coherence has come about. I have had a little to do with this too.
I do not believe this to be the case. The reason for this decision was, rather, that we wanted to have a special instrument for the Eastern and Central European States which, like Malta and Cyprus, are involved in the accession process, but under different conditions.
Nevertheless, I have said that I understand the arguments that people have been putting forward here and the Commission will endeavour to take account of these aspirations, but since this is all about Agenda 2000 and the Financial Perspective, we will not be able to do this without amending this Financial Perspective. Hitherto this has been out of the question of course. By way of clarification: if we transfer it across from heading 4 to heading 7 then this will have no effect on the overall balance of the budget. If we do this, then heading 7 would be increased accordingly but heading 4 would be decreased by the same amount. The idea that heading 7 could be added to in this way and heading 4 left alone, is not workable. Parliament is no more able than anyone else to spend money that it has not got, at least not until we have a printing machine installed in the basement that we can use to print euro notes!
As for the peace process in Cyprus and how it is linked with the accession negotiations, I would reiterate that there has always been a direct connection between the two. The Commission and the Council have long endeavoured to encourage the two communities in Cyprus to undertake joint projects. So far, as you know, this has proved unsuccessful, and I have been asked if there have been any signs to the contrary. Mrs Rothe, I would put it this way: I am convinced that there has been a distinct improvement in the framework conditions for reaching agreements of this kind. I do not have confirmation of this at present, and nor do I expect it, since we have not yet held direct talks. These will take place at a later date.
The framework conditions have changed in that the Helsinki decisions made a whole range of things possible that were not possible hitherto, and, above all, in that the political strategies employed by the parties concerned have changed beyond recognition. I have always believed that the old line – i.e. not to admit Cyprus under any circumstances until the political conflict has been resolved – has a weak point in that it does not provide the Turkish community on Cyprus with a convincing incentive to properly involve themselves, for, with this strategy, the Turkish community would not need to do anything but sit back and wait. There would then be no question of Cyprus acceding to the Union. As matters stand, Turkey has to take seriously the fact that there is a risk of Cyprus being integrated into the European Union, and this would provide opportunities for prosperity and security for the Greek community whilst the Turkish community, whose level of prosperity is already far lower, would fall even further behind. Therefore, it is my firm belief that, since Helsinki, there has been far greater incentive to link the accession process with the resolution of the conflict. Indeed that was the idea behind it. After only a few weeks, Mrs Rothe, it is still too early to deliver a verdict on this, but in any case, I have no grounds for assuming that the new line will fail. As yet, we have no grounds for saying that we will actually succeed, but one thing I can say quite clearly is that the conditions that need to be in place for us to take a step forwards have improved considerably.
Finally, of course, the Cyprus question has a role in the discussions with Turkey. I met the Turkish Foreign Minister in Brussels a few weeks ago and naturally I asked if Turkey could take a positive and constructive stance in relation to this issue. I would just make one point: we cannot be 100% sure – I am not at any rate – that one only has to press a button in Ankara to set the wheels in motion in Cyprus. It is very far from being that simple, rather we are going to have to make concentrated efforts, during talks with both communities, to encourage them to reach an understanding. That is what we intend to do: the necessary measures and programmes are in place.
I must make it clear to you that we need this financial regulation, the one that has yet to be decided on here, before we can even get started. The financial regulation is the legal framework we need to tackle the priorities established under the terms of the accession partnerships with Malta and Cyprus. I cannot start anything while there is no regulation in place, because I lack the legal basis for doing so. If the lamented lack of coherence should happen to have something to do with this point, then I am bound to say that this regulation is a legal framework and nothing more than that. This legal framework is fleshed out in the priorities set by the accession partnerships that were adopted by the Commission and the Council last year and are now being implemented in the corresponding programmes and project management. On the contrary, I would say that, although many areas of European policy leave something to be desired in terms of coherence, in this instance I would claim, on behalf of the Commission and the Council, that we have developed a very clear, transparent and coherent policy."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples