Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-16-Speech-2-238"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000516.9.2-238"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:translated text |
"On the first question, I should like to say that the Member States still have no negotiating position on this question, nor is there any Commission draft on it. My own personal opinion is irrelevant. In any case, I cannot explain it to the European Parliament until the institutions have formed their own opinion.
As far as linking transition periods is concerned, this happens automatically. We shall have a so-called “play off” at the end of the negotiations between the wishes which the Member States still have and the wishes which the candidates have. Basically their wishes concern transition periods. Irrespective of whether or not that is what it is formally called, you can imagine how this sort of negotiation process proceeds. It will be a negotiation and one of the principles of negotiation is that one side makes a concession so that the other side also makes a concession and an overall compromise must be found in the end which takes accounts of the wishes of both sides.
Highly specific packages – if that was your question – whereby we also say: we are linking the wish for transition periods on the one side to the wish for transition periods on the other side are not feasible in my opinion. I should draw your attention to the fact that the question of transition periods in relation to the free movement of workers, for example, only gives cause for concern in two of the fifteen Member States. It is a German problem and it is an Austrian problem. It is not a problem for the other thirteen which is why I cannot predict exactly how this issue will be handled in the final stage of negotiations."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples