Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-03-Speech-2-122"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001003.4.2-122"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
I shall be brief, as indeed I was earlier, since my first speech was three minutes under the allotted speaking time.
Once again, we can understand, as Mr Belder stated, our Hungarian, or Polish, or Czech friends asking us for signs. Without these, we shall be calling our credibility into question. However, and this will be my last word, as I want to get my point across clearly: I am no pessimist on the subject, I do not want to do things by halves, I want to see a strong option with regard to enlargement – in order to be credible, we must also be serious, we must make ourselves clearly understood, and we must also be able to gain the allegiance of the nations, the peoples of the candidate countries and also our own peoples. So we must not rush things.
Several years ago in Copenhagen we defined the requisite criteria. We are currently conducting serious proactive negotiations alongside the Commission. Let us create the conditions for success, for it is important that this enlargement is not a flash in the pan, not just a symbolic decision that will go on to create problems. This enlargement must be a genuine reunification enabling tomorrow’s Europe to operate with thirty Members as well as it works with fifteen, and even, with reference to this morning’s debate, perhaps better than it works with fifteen.
I should like, in turn, to stress the concomitance between our debate here, which is indeed a fundamental debate, and the tenth anniversary of German reunification, as both subjects are obviously related. It was the fall of the Berlin Wall, this fantastic historic event, which created the conditions for enlargement and for European reunification and which, once again, gives perspective and meaning to this task which will go down in the history of our continent. I should like to congratulate Günther Verheugen on his excellent presentation, which was, as ever, clear, precise and clearly highlighted the key points and the problems to be overcome.
Enlargement, as I have just said, is a historic process, a duty. It is henceforth inevitable, and we should not allow new divides to appear in today’s Europe, ten years after the fall of the Berlin Wall. To make matters clear, however, there can be no accession on the cheap. We must not, on the pretext that we are making history, fail to make proper preparations for enlargement, and that means that the candidate countries must fulfil the requisite conditions: adopt the
and be in a position to implement it.
Admittedly this will require transitional periods, as there have already been when we previously undertook enlargement to include countries that are now full Members of the European Union. We must, however, be reasonable. Regarding the duration of these periods, there is no room for demagoguery. We are well aware that definitive transitional periods, if I may use the expression, do not establish conditions that are favourable for an enlargement that will, once, again be successful.
Another key point, public opinion in the various countries must indeed be informed and this must be done in such a way that they accept this enlargement. In speaking of informing public opinion, I am thinking, of course, of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, since they need to promote this cause which is fundamental for them. We must be able to count on an extremely strong allegiance in these countries. I am, however, also thinking of public opinion within the European Union. Let us not close our eyes to the fact that there is a certain amount of reluctance within the European Union, and this is perhaps one of the reasons why you said, Mr Cox, that we do not talk enough about enlargement. Perhaps, suddenly, there are some parties that do not dare to talk about it. It is also possible that this reluctance exists because we do not talk about it enough. My own conclusion is that we should discuss it more, but also discuss it properly and better. It is very important, and therefore I am pleased that the Commission is working on an information campaign which Commissioner Verheugen wishes to make both extensive and decentralised.
Without wishing to tell him what to do, I believe that, in order to be efficient, it must fall in line with the expectations of public opinion and take on board the practical matters of concern to public opinion: security, as we must live in a Europe which is an area of freedom, freedom of movement, but also of security for its inhabitants; employment and the fear of social dumping, which I do not share, but which we must combat by means of rational arguments; the environment, for it is clear that everything to do with the environment, particularly nuclear safety, is a real requirement for the citizens of Europe; financing and, finally, corruption. In this information campaign, we must fight exaggerated fears, but also solve problems as they arise.
The matter of the allegiance of public opinion to the enlargement process was also highlighted by Mr Hänsch, and I think it lies at the very core of the debate. The European Union’s credibility is implicated in this. With this in mind, I understand the feeling of impatience that some of you have – the chairmen, Mr Hänsch, Mr Brok, and Mr Poettering – who would like the countries of Central and Eastern Europe to be able to take part in the next European Parliament elections in 2004. This contains a powerful idea, which is also a fine idea, namely that we shall not carry out enlargement in the face of opinion and that, effectively, the best way to carry out enlargement with the assent of opinion is by involving it in elections, since elections are the expression of democracy and the citizens’ means of gaining access to the political system.
Personally, in response to this demand, I would say, ‘Why not?’ Why not, indeed, if it is at all possible? And on the subject, let me again remind you, bearing in mind that this comment is not, as I think I said, intended to be technical or pessimistic or restrictive – that the European Union has set a date: 1 January 2003. It is up to the candidate countries to make the necessary efforts to achieve this, and it is up to us to assist them and also to make ourselves ready to accept them. Once again, however, let us not indulge in too much demagoguery, even if we can understand this impatience, let us be aware that it is not very likely that many countries that are currently candidates will be able to take part in the 2004 elections, even though we might like to see this. Let us adopt a positive and proactive line, but also one that is realistic.
Mr Cox wanted us to get to the heart of some difficult matters. I can assure him that this is the wish of the French Presidency. Mrs Hautala put her finger on a very sensitive issue: she suggested that the financial perspectives be reviewed in order to speed up the enlargement process. I need not stress, in this House, the strength of this proposal, or also the fact that it is perhaps a little risky too, with the danger of encountering certain problems here and there. That being said, I think it was not a bad idea to ask the question."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples