Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-03-Speech-2-168"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-10-03"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Progress towards accession by the 12 candidate countries (continued)2
dcterms:Language	"fi"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20001003.5.2-168"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-10-03-Speech-2-1692
lpv:speaker	lp:Paavo Väyrynen2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Suomen Keskusta (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; AFCO (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 vice-chair; ELDR (1999-07-20--2002-03-06)3 substitute; Delegation to the European Economic Area Joint Parliamentary Committee (EEA) (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, people have spoken about a very fast timetable in the discussions on enlargement. On the other hand, it has been demanded of the new Member States that, prior to accession, they should have adopted and implemented the whole of the and that the transitional periods should be few and brief. There is an irreconcilable conflict between these points of view. Some have suggested that this conflict should be resolved by offering the applicant countries membership of the EEA first. This is not a realistic idea. The EEA would not suit the applicant countries and, besides, they will be satisfied with nothing less than membership of the European Union. Rapid enlargement of the EU is a political inevitability. That is why I have asked and I am now asking why we could not change the terms of membership. We could specify a basic version of the which would contain core parts of the EEA agreements and a common foreign and security policy. In addition to adopting and implementing this basic version, the new members would obviously have to fulfil the Copenhagen criteria, agree to adopt the in its entirety as a longer-term objective, and commit to the political goals of the Union. In this way we could create preconditions for membership of many or even all the applicant countries in the next few years. In splitting the body of EU law in two, the level of integration achieved by the present Member States could be guaranteed and cooperation could be further enhanced. If the Union were to enlarge rapidly it would have to decentralise dramatically, as was stated in the ELDR Group’s position on enlargement. Thus, the tasks and competence of the Union would have to be curtailed and it would then concentrate on the core issues that can only be dealt with at EU level. This would mean that the Union would obviously also become differentiated, so that some present Member States would move further along the path of integration than others. A Europe of enlargement would be one of both decentralisation and differentiation. Talk about the fast accession to the Union on the part of the applicant countries is just empty words unless the conditions of membership are changed."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"acquis"1 "acquis,"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph