Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-03-13-Speech-3-015"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020313.2.3-015"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I wish, on behalf of the Commission, to thank firstly you, Mr President, most warmly for your statement on the situation in the Middle East and to make it clear that the Commission endorses the whole of what you have said.
The Commission has already, over the past year, set out its thinking on the issues to be dealt with and emphasised its willingness to enter into dialogue. Such discussions need now to be continued in a purposeful way within the framework of the existing EU/Russian bodies. I would, though, like to make it clear that separate negotiations with Russia on the Kaliningrad issue cannot be carried on within the framework of the enlargement process. We are unable to engage in negotiations on the rights of third parties and, above all, cannot come to any agreements to their detriment.
The decisive question will be how the Kaliningrad region can successfully be included in the dynamic of the Baltic region's development. The real problem will be the growing socio-economic gulf between Poland and Lithuania on the one hand and the Kaliningrad region on the other, which will ensue if a way cannot be found to make possible Kaliningrad's involvement in the region's increasing economic dynamism. We must reduce this gap if the spurt of growth that will result from enlargement is not to give rise to social and political tensions in this part of the Baltic region, for the real danger is of the development gap leading to potentially explosive social and political tensions.
Let me add to what has been said on the subject of Cyprus. Last week, I had the opportunity to hold a series of political discussions in Cyprus, notably with the leaders of the two communities, Mr Clerides and Mr Denktash. I came home from Cyprus thoroughly encouraged, with the impression that both leaders of the negotiating teams in the ongoing face-to-face discussions on a possible resolution of the Cyprus question are striving in earnest and with determination and commitment towards a lasting political solution. No breakthrough has as yet been achieved, and there are as yet no definite agreements, but I could see that convergence has been achieved to an extent that would have been considered impossible even only a short time ago. So I want again to encourage both sides to pursue these discussions in a constructive fashion and make use of this window of opportunity to come to a sustainable and durable peace settlement in good time for the accession negotiations to be completed.
I derive particular satisfaction from the fact that both Mr Clerides and Mr Denktash assured me that it is still their objective to reach political agreement by June of this year. The Commission remains in close contact with the United Nations in order to ensure that any political solution is compatible with the provisions of European law in force. It is from our point of view crucial that Cyprus, being subject to international law, should be able to act at an international level, speaking with one voice in the institutions of the European Union and should be able to implement and enforce within its own territory the international undertakings that it enters into.
On 30 January, the Commission presented its proposals for a common financial framework for enlargement, our objective being to guarantee the coherence of the negotiations on agricultural policy, structural policy, and on the budget chapter. Over and above that, we want enlargement to come about under conditions acceptable to all sides. There must not be second-class membership, nor will there be. Enlargement must, though, be on a sound financial footing and also manageable in the long term. In preparing the common negotiating position in the coming weeks, the Commission will be guided by the following principles: Firstly, that the ground rules have been clear ever since the 1999 Berlin decision on Agenda 2000. The Berlin global upper limits will not be exceeded even if we now accept up to ten new Member States, whereas the decisions taken in Berlin assumed six.
Secondly, the new Member States are, in principle, to participate in all common policy areas, in certain cases only after agreed transitional periods, although it should be noted that such transitional periods may be requested both by the candidate countries and also, in individual cases, by us.
Thirdly, the new Member States are not to be financially worse off after joining than they were before it. It goes without saying that we cannot tolerate a situation in which those who will be our poorest members will, in the early years of their membership, be paying for their richer counterparts. It is, then, absolutely unacceptable that the new members should be in a net position from the very start.
Fourthly, our proposals are not under any circumstances to prejudice the form that Community policies may take in the future. That also applies to agricultural policy. The Commission's proposals do not, therefore, in any way prejudge the next financial perspective for the post-2006 period. You will be aware that our package is, above all, one of structural aid, as it is in this area that there is the greatest need. Perhaps I should just quote some figures. Of the overall package alone, 76% is allocated to structural and cohesion measures and to measures in the rural development area. Of the financial package as a whole, 76% will take the form of direct investments in the development of these countries. It is only in the cohesion fund, but not in the structural fund, that we are proposing to increase resources, thus putting the emphasis on projects in the areas of the environment and transport infrastructure, where the need is greatest and in respect of which the candidate countries have, in the course of negotiations, entered into commitments which we must help them to meet.
The Commission considers it particularly necessary to emphasise the development of rural areas in order to actively promote structural measures in rural areas and make use of the opportunity for restructuring. It is true that, in Berlin, no exact calculations were made as regards direct income aid for farmers in the period up to 2006, but I must point out that the Commission remarked at three points in the memoranda that accompanied Agenda 2000 that the
is a unity, that there cannot, in the long term, be two agricultural policy systems alongside each other and that direct aid forms part of the
. We must, then deal with this issue at the negotiating table.
After accession, the new Member States will pay full contributions to the budget, whilst some of the structural and agricultural policy measures will become effective in budget terms only after a certain time delay. As in previous enlargement rounds, the Commission will therefore provide for the facilitation in principle of lump-sum compensation in the budget. Practical details of this can, of course, be decided only at the very end of the negotiations.
I believe that the present time requires us to demonstrate that all the political institutions of the European Union share common ground and a determination that the violence in the Middle East should come to an end and that common sense
must be given a chance.
From the Commission's point of view, the package now on the table is balanced both in terms of policy and content. The plan is still in place. Negotiations are progressing at a brisk pace. The next stage is clearly mapped out. Up until the European Council in Seville, the task in hand will be to work out a common EU negotiating position on agricultural policy, structural policy, on the budget chapter and on the institutional chapter, and the course taken so far by discussions in the Council leaves me confident that that will also be achieved.
In addition, the Commission will be presenting a report to the European Council in Seville on the realisation of the action plans to build up administrative capacity in the candidate countries. At the end of October this year, the European Council, under the Danish Presidency, will consider the progress reports for 2002 and the Commission's actual recommendations, which will relate to the question of with which candidate countries negotiations may be formally concluded at the European Council in Copenhagen at the end of this year. This can, at the same time, introduce the concluding phase of negotiations. Continued close cooperation and Parliament's political support will be indispensable to reach a satisfactory conclusion.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me now turn to the subject of our debate. In terms of enlargement, 2002 will indeed be a most decisive year. The European Councils in Gothenburg and Laeken, and Parliament's decisions on the subject, have given rise to such political momentum and created such a level of response that this process can now be delayed no longer. Any delaying tactic would now have unmanageable and perilous consequences and could lead to the political and economic stability now achieved across the whole region between the Baltic and the Black Sea being jeopardised.
It is still, then, our objective to welcome all those candidate countries that are sufficiently prepared as new members before the 2004 European elections, and prospects for this are good. Negotiations are progressing according to plan, and we are adhering fully to the timetable. The Spanish Presidency's excellent cooperation gives me confidence that, under it, negotiations will be successfully completed on all the chapters – with the exception of the financial package and the ‘institutions’ chapter – with the ten countries that, at Laeken, were named as potential candidates for membership in 2004.
As envisaged in the road map, the Commission will, in the coming weeks, be submitting drafts of the common positions on the chapters on agriculture, regional policy, budgets and institutions. Apart from that, we intend this year to open all the outstanding negotiating chapters with Bulgaria and Romania and to present a more developed and enhanced strategy to prepare these countries for accession.
I would now like to deal with a number of political issues which have, in recent weeks, and to some extent in recent days, shown themselves to be potentially problematic or possible obstacles. I will start by referring to the discussions on the Beneš Decrees. It is the Commission's view that this is not just a legal problem, but primarily a political and moral issue, a solution to which has for some years been sought by the Commission and by many others in many, many confidential discussions. The Commission takes the view that those Beneš Decrees that refer to the expropriation of property conflict both with present-day Czech and European legislation, and are therefore obsolete and of no further effect. It should therefore be our common endeavour to get back to objective reality on this issue and not have the process of enlargement laden down with issues that belong to the past.
An understanding has to be reached which will allow all the parties concerned to maintain stable and lasting relations with each other in a spirit of good neighbourliness and to shape Europe's future together. The question that is significant in terms of coexistence within the European Union is whether Czech legal practice on the reconveyance of property results in discriminatory effects. I have noted with satisfaction that the Czech government, for its part, is examining this question, and I also welcome Parliament's request for an independent opinion on the matter. The Commission, too, is at present re-examining all the legal aspects of this issue.
I am already able, though, to tell you today that the Czech government has declared to the Commission its readiness to act and ask the Czech legislature to change the legal position if it should transpire that present legal practice cannot be reconciled with European law.
Another issue to which we have had to give closer attention this year has been that of the future of the Kaliningrad region. On completion of Poland and Lithuania’s accession processes, Kaliningrad will become a Russian enclave within the European Union. The Russian government has raised a range of issues on the problems of access, cross-border travel and energy supply. It is my belief that we have to consider these topics in the overall context of the development of the Baltic region as a whole. Substantially more than just agreement on a transit order is at stake, and a great deal more than a solution to the question of visas. As regards transit arrangements and the visa issue, we are seeking an arrangement within the framework of the existing Schengen
."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples