Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-03-Speech-2-112"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001003.4.2-112"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, honourable members, I welcome the opportunity for an in-depth debate on progress in and prospects for negotiations on the enlargement of the European Union. I should like to thank the rapporteur of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, Mr Brok, for his clear, comprehensive report. My thanks also to all the other rapporteurs. Despite differences of detail, a common basic line is beginning to emerge.
We will not permit any new division of Europe. We do not want to replace ideological demarcation lines in the form of insurmountable frontiers with a new demarcation line, a demarcation line separating the haves from the have-nots in Europe. But that is not all that is at stake. We want to extend peace and stability to the whole of Europe. But not just any old stability. The Soviet empire gave the impression of being stable both to the outside world and internally for decades, but this stability had long been rotten and crumbling, precisely because it was not based on democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the protection of minorities.
It is no coincidence; on the contrary, it is virtually a cast-iron rule that we only have peace and stability in Europe where these values have been put into practice and where Europe is already unified or is in the process of unifying. Peace and stability in Europe are the basis for a happy future for all the people of Europe. And if they do not apply throughout Europe, then they are in jeopardy throughout Europe.
The second major change which we are witnessing and to which Europe must adjust is the meteoric speed at which the economy is moving towards a global market and global competition. This change offers us huge opportunities and the more we pool our strengths and interests, the better use we can make of them. An even bigger common market will make us stronger. Extending the euro zone will strengthen the euro. A larger community will have more weight when it comes to mastering global tasks.
The enlargement of the European Union is not a post-dated cheque which has yet to prove that it can be cashed. The advantages are already there; they are visible and everyone stands to gain. I am firmly convinced that, without the prospect of European integration, the systems of central and eastern Europe would not have been changed as quickly or as successfully.
When we see that the countries in the enlargement process have already stabilised their democratic systems in a short space of time, then that is their achievement. They alone have taken the courageous decision to shake off bureaucracy and a planned economy and create open societies, modern democracies and workable market economies. But they have also done so because the prospect of membership of the European Union gives them hope of solidarity with the people of Europe and because they are being offered a firm political and economic foothold.
The advantages of political change can already be accurately anticipated from economic developments. The candidate countries of central and eastern Europe used to be on the fringe of the world economy. In the meantime, their foreign trade with the EU has risen to between 50 and 70%. We are achieving high foreign trade surpluses with all these countries. That translates into higher tax revenues, higher national insurance contributions and, most importantly, more jobs.
The forecasts for growth in the area as a whole are extremely auspicious. Growth is expected to be well above the current EU average over the next ten years. These fast developing new markets create new supply and new demand; it is an all win situation for both sides right from the start. I do not think there is any particular need to stress at this point that these promising economic prospects are based solely on quantifiable and political stable framework conditions.
The prospect of enlargement has resolved centuries-old conflicts, settled border problems and defused minority issues.
These achievements deserve a positive response. I am certain that we all agree that these people, who have gone to so much trouble, should not be disappointed. I am therefore delighted to be able to tell you that the both the quality and speed of the enlargement process improved during the first year of the new Commission. The process has already acquired a momentum of its own and is now unstoppable.
Allow me to recapitulate the principles which guide us and which are non-negotiable.
This debate offers a welcome opportunity to consolidate our resolve to enlarge. The development of Europe has entered a phase in which, now more than ever, we need clear objectives and decisive action. Our two major tasks, internal reform and external enlargement, are closely interconnected. Both tasks are indispensable per se but they need to be resolved together if they are to be resolved correctly.
First: we are preparing the new members for full membership with equal rights. Enlargement will not create an
Europe or second-class citizens within the Union. New members must comply with all the conditions of accession. There will be no political discounts.
Secondly: each country stands on its own merits in the enlargement process. No geographical or political groups are being formed. The terms Luxembourg group or Helsinki group are merely technical terms in order to differentiate between the countries invited to enter into negotiations in Luxembourg in 1997 and those which did not join until Helsinki in 1999. But that does not alter the fact that each country will only be ready for accession when it has made the necessary progress.
Thirdly: we are abiding by the principle of differentiated negotiations. Chapters are opened and closed depending on the current state of preparations and actual progress in negotiations.
Fourthly: this results in another principle whereby the countries which joined later have a fair chance of catching up with those that began earlier. I wish there to be no doubt about the fact that we cannot help them catch up by slowing down negotiations with those who are already further ahead. We can help countries catch up, but not by putting their neighbours on hold.
The Commission will be presenting its progress report for the year 2000 and a new strategy paper on 8 November. Work is still under way. The reports for previous years set high standards which we want to maintain. These are reports, not report cards, and I too shall avoid any form of ranking of candidates in the future.
The reports are intended to help candidate countries continue with the necessary reforms and rectify persistent shortcomings. They are also intended to help the EU institutions monitor their success and to act as a basis on which negotiating strategies can be further developed.
Without wishing to anticipate the results, I can report on some of the trends in the new reports today. There has been progress on a wide front in securing the political criteria. I cannot see a risk of any one country descending into authoritarian structures. Neighbourly relations are developing well and quickly. Democratic basic values and rules are securely anchored. We shall, of course, continue to monitor potential risks and unresolved questions, which is why we are keeping a careful eye on the situation of national minorities and why we are working on concrete measures to overcome social discrimination, especially against the Roma people, in a whole series of countries.
As far as the economic criteria are concerned, there has been clear progress here also. Nearly all the countries now qualify as market economies, even if the process of economic reform has not yet been fully completed. But that does not only apply to the candidate countries.
A number of countries have made such good progress with the second economic criterion of their ability to compete in the single market that they are fast reaching the point at which they are ready for accession.
As far as the third set of criteria is concerned, i.e. the ability to adopt and apply the whole
a great deal still needs to be done. I am not criticising the fact that the public administration is often very weak and that the legal system does not yet offer the degree of legal security which we require in the Community. Obviously, changes in this area take longer than elsewhere. The work of creating institutions and structures is not yet finished. Above all, we need the right people. They need to be found, trained and, most importantly, the money must be there to pay them.
I should therefore like to establish straight away that the cornerstone which will allow the enlargement project to be completed is agreement on the institutional reforms of the EU. Unless they are reformed, our institutions will suffer a heart attack and will no longer be able to fulfil their purpose. A successful outcome to the Intergovernmental Conference in Nice in December will pave the way for more pro-active negotiations.
High priority is already being given to these questions in the pre-accession strategy and we shall step this up. We need to be sure that the
is fully applied in practice, not just on paper.
I should like to mention a problem in this respect which requires particular attention and is a matter of great concern to me. I refer to the widespread corruption in a not insignificant number of countries. Of course, I am aware of the specific social and economic causes of corruption. But there is also corruption in places in which there is no ready explanation in the form of pitiful levels of income. I do not hold with corruption as a sort of folkloric factor or as part of the cultural heritage. In modern societies and modern economies, corruption is a cancerous sore. The disease grows and spreads to what is still healthy tissue.
Weak administrative structures, a lack of legal security and corruption are also negative location factors which deter foreign investors and hamper fast economic development. Obviously, the huge economic gulf between the Member States of the European Union and the candidate countries can only be closed if there is a constant flow of direct foreign investment to the candidate countries.
The pace of the negotiating process itself increased considerably again last year. I should like to clear up a misunderstanding which sometimes creeps in when we talk of the pace of negotiations. The pace of negotiations cannot simply be extrapolated from the number of chapters dealt with. The content of the chapters in question is also a deciding factor. All outstanding chapters, with the exception of institutions and miscellaneous were opened with the countries in the Luxembourg group during the Portuguese Presidency: a total of 174. At least 84 chapters will have been opened with the countries in the Helsinki group by the end of the French Presidency, i.e. nearly half. I reckon that all outstanding chapters will also be opened with at least four countries in this group next year.
We are now entering a new phase. Our intention now, during the French Presidency, is to start with negotiations in the stricter sense of the word, by which I mean decisions on applications, transitional periods and derogations. On 8 November, the Commission will present more detailed thoughts on the principles which should inform how we deal with derogations and how the corresponding decision-making process should be organised.
I should like today to mention two sets of problems. Transitional periods, which affect how the internal market functions, and problems relating to comprehensive investment programmes. As far as the internal market is concerned, we must ensure that transitional periods are kept to a minimum in terms of both time and content. Where major, long-term investments are needed in order to attain EU standards, we must bear in mind that even the present members claimed long transitional periods in such cases.
As regards the current situation in the monetary union, I should like to remind the House that monetary union forms part of the Treaty and, hence, part of the negotiations. All the candidate countries are keen to accede to monetary union and accession to monetary union is governed by special terms in the Maastricht Treaty. In other words, membership of the EU does not automatically lead to membership of the euro zone; on the contrary, the special criteria must be met. In any event, membership of the exchange rate mechanism comes first and requires a separate decision.
It will not be long before we step up negotiations; as a result, we shall be concentrating on the outstanding – in some cases very complicated – issues: agriculture, the environment, regional policy, internal and legal policy and the budget, to name but a few. In preparation for this, the Commission is working on a new monitoring system which will allow us to assess the state of progress in negotiations and actual implementation in each country accurately at any given time.
I should also like to say a few words on a subject which is very close to my heart: how best to sell the project "Enlargement in the societies of the Member States and candidate countries" to the public. That we have a communications problem can hardly be doubted, even if surveys do not convey a very accurate picture. The Commission has suggested a communication initiative in order to improve this situation. The legal and financial conditions for it are in place and we are in the process of deciding on the exact content. This initiative will basically be decentralised; i.e. it will be implemented in the Member States and in the candidate countries on the basis of their specific needs and circumstances. We are therefore looking to coordinate as closely as possible with the programmes of national governments, Parliament and other institutions.
Because of limited financial resources, we are being forced to develop concepts addressed directly at opinion formers and multipliers. Buying media space is hardly an option. We must therefore count mainly on the involvement of all types of social groups and on the commitment of individuals. That instantly implies that the whole process needs to be democratised.
But success does not depend on the time factor alone, however important it may be.
Any communications strategy which fails to address what really moves people is doomed to failure. We must therefore identify what people associate with enlargement, what hopes and expectations and what concerns and dangers. Propaganda of any sort will not get us anywhere. We need political answers to political questions and we need to get them across properly.
What sort of questions do I mean? Will there be waves of immigrants and what impact will this have on job markets? How will the competitive status quo between current and new Member States in border regions change? Will there be environmental and social dumping? What are the implications of open borders for the fight against crime and, finally, how will we pay for it all?
We have good answers for all these questions. Enlargement will reduce the number of immigrants. Problems which may arise in the early years can be controlled using intelligently-configured transitional periods. We must help border regions to make use of the new opportunities and meet the new challenges. The Commission is already working on the relevant proposals.
There will be no environmental or social dumping because the new members will have to adopt our standards. Enlargement is good for the environment. Enlargement is also good for the level of social security in Europe.
Border security and the fight against crime will also be governed by our standards and will benefit from European cooperation. Here too things will become better, not worse, as the result of enlargement.
The costs of enlargement are set out in the current financial perspectives and will be reflected in the budget. No more can or will be disbursed than is allocated in the budget.
Allow me to summarise the message to the citizens of Europe. Enlargement represents our only chance to change the course of European history and to secure peace, maintain stability and open up huge, new, once-in-a-lifetime opportunities for all the people of Europe. Enlargement is not a magical mystery tour. It will be prepared as thoroughly as is humanly possible. We would be embarking on a magical mystery tour if we were to abandon the project or postpone it indefinitely. We have a window of opportunity. It is open now. It will not stay open for ever. There are risks. No-one can avoid that. But that should not weaken our resolve. It would far riskier if we failed to do what needs to be done.
A specific outcome is needed from the Intergovernmental Conference if we are to do justice to the tremendous pressure for adaptation. An unsatisfactory outcome or even failure in Nice would have fatal consequences in the candidate countries by playing into the hands of the eurosceptic movements in these countries. Populists will stand up and maintain that the EU has finally made it clear that, in truth, it does not want any new members. Action speaks louder than words when it comes to countering such arguments!
The present and largest enlargement round in the history of European unification is a morally-imperative, strategically-needed and politically-feasible move. This project has already made considerable progress and there is no turning back. There is no single case in the negotiations in which it is a question of “if”; it is only a question of “how” and “when”. Enlargement is the only answer to the two main historical changes which we have witnessed in our lifetime.
It is perhaps a coincidence, and if so it is a happy coincidence, that this debate is being held on the 10th anniversary of the completion of German reunification. German reunification should also be seen as a part of and as a precursor to the wider objective of European enlargement; the events and developments which made German reunification possible also made it possible for us even to sit here today in this House and contemplate the admission of ten central and eastern European countries as members of the European Union.
That is the reason why enlargement is the right response to the end of the Cold War and the break up of the Communist bloc. How are we supposed to explain to the people of Europe who only gained their freedom and self-determination in the last decade that the advantages of European integration are only available to those who happened to be on the “right” side of the iron curtain after 1945."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples