Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-04-Speech-2-055"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010904.3.2-055"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we hold this annual debate in order to assist the candidate countries, the Commission and the Council in completing their negotiations for enlargement as quickly as possible and also to admonish one or other of them because in many areas we have not seen the progress we want. We should like to point out that is it we who have to ratify at the end of the day.
Commissioner, when the euro is introduced next year, more money will be available and we ought then to conduct a major campaign to make clear that the economic and political advantages of enlargement extend far beyond the debate about costs. If we can expand the area of security and economic prosperity in Europe, that will be the greatest political achievement of the decade, guaranteeing security and peace on our continent. We ought to strengthen this stability accordingly.
The countries that cannot, should not or do not want to be members of the European Union at present, over and above the twelve with which we are currently negotiating, should also be offered another option than full membership so that we can bind them to the European Union. Countries like Ukraine and others cannot be overlooked in this process if we want long-term stability on this continent.
In our opinion, there should be no further delay to the enlargement process. We should all create our internal prerequisites, institutional and otherwise, so that the candidate countries do not become hostages to our own reform process. We should make clear that all candidate countries are treated as equals and that countries like Hungary and the Czech Republic will therefore get the number of mandates in the European Parliament to which they are entitled.
We should also make clear that no one outside the candidate countries and the European Union has any influence over European Union enlargement. It is a matter for the European Union and the candidate countries alone. In saying this, we should also like once again to make clear that in view of what we said last year, namely that the first candidate countries can take part in the 2004 European elections, the accession treaties with those countries that are ready must be concluded by the end of 2002 given that the ratification process will then still have to be completed.
In this connection, the individual country reports also need to make clear where the individual countries’ strengths and weaknesses lie. I should particularly like to thank the rapporteurs of the various country reports for the commitment they have shown to their respective countries.
These countries must not only make the
part of their own legislation, but in the coming year they must also demonstrate that they are capable of implementing it administratively so that they are really ready for membership. Of course, we understand that in some cases there will have to be transitional arrangements, both in the interests of the Union in individual cases and also in the interests of particular candidate countries. But we should like to make clear that transitional arrangements should be kept to a minimum and be for as short a period as possible so that we arrive much more quickly at a coherent union with fewer distortions of competition. It seems important in this connection that economic development, too, cannot yet be regarded as certain in all countries and that this market readiness, this ability to become part of the European internal market, as the Commission made very clear for the various countries last year, is, at the end of the day, another important point that needs to be examined.
From our point of view, we are deliberately not mentioning any favourites for accession to the European Union, because we know from experience that wrong decisions and mistakes in domestic policy next year may mean that a country that is perhaps fairly well ahead today is not actually ready when the time comes. For that reason, it is a genuine race where everyone has the same opportunities and at the end of the day we measure who is ready for accession at any particular time.
At the same time, we should also be saying among ourselves that under the present financial arrangements we have assumed that the financial questions of enlargement have been settled for the period up to 2006. I mean that with phasing in
and phasing out
periods we shall be able to cope with it.
From our citizens’ point of view, internal security is an important issue surrounding enlargement. We can therefore only urge the Commission to negotiate particularly clearly and seriously in these areas, just as we take the view that questions of external security are very important. In my opinion, as many EU States as possible should also belong to NATO, but it is up to each individual country to make its own decision in the matter. If as many as possible do belong, we will also have a better chance of developing a single European security and defence policy.
We should not demand more from the candidate countries than the Member States of the European Union themselves are already doing today and we should not seek to cram into the negotiating package everything we might wish for. We must not require of them more than we ask of ourselves. We must not erect further new barriers."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples