Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-03-13-Speech-3-046"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020313.2.3-046"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to thank Parliament most warmly for the wide-ranging support it has given the Presidency of the Council and the Commission in the enlargement process, and I consider it highly significant that this common purpose and cooperation are continuing.
A couple of very short observations: Firstly, it seems to me that I again need to point out very clearly that we may not impose new conditions for enlargement, no matter how desirable it may be to push forward certain reforms within the policies and also within the structure of the European Union. Much as I understand the use people make of enlargement as an argument in favour of pressing on with these, I must equally warn against any form of composite measure, as that could be taken in the candidate countries only as a new and additional obstacle and would serve to confirm the candidates' existing suspicion that, whenever they approach the objective, we move it even further away. That is not on!
Nor do I at all understand what is the problem with the Convention, for example. Why is it that the present candidate countries should not, as new members, already play a full part with equal rights? Those who think they would be incapable of doing so are deluding themselves.
Let me deliver a forceful warning against the conception that we even now have to put our silverware and valuable porcelain in a place of safety, before the grubby kids arrive from the East. Anyone who approaches enlargement in this way does not grasp the whole historic dimension of this problem.
My second observation relates to finances. I am quite happy to be admonished by representatives of the budgetary authority, that the Commission should adhere to what the budgetary authority has prescribed. If you want us to spend more money, then by all means come to an agreement with the Council that more money should be made available. Until that happens, the Council will adhere strictly to the framework that we have received from the Council and from Parliament. I can tell you that that is quite sufficient. It would be quite absurd to make substantially more money available because of our being at the limit of what we can justify as allowable expenditure in the candidate countries. It is quite simply untrue that they are getting a worse deal than the present members. Measured by reference to their gross national product, those who will be our new members get substantially more aid from the European Budget than do the present cohesion Member States.
It is, then, accurate to depict us as applying double standards only in as much as the candidate countries enjoy preferential treatment to some degree. They are not, though, neglected in any way.
In response to Mr Oostlander's last remark, let me say that there are dozens of studies of this sort, some of which also come from the Netherlands, to the effect that the costs of enlargement would in fact be far higher than we have calculated. All these studies, including the Dutch ones, have one thing in common; they are based on political assumptions that are not going to become reality. They assume results from negotiations that do not exist, nor will they exist in the future. If, of course, we were to negotiate a requirement for the whole environmental acquis to be completed in the new Member States by 2005, that would cost EUR 130 billion, and that EUR 130 billion would have to be raised. We do not, though, negotiate like that. We negotiate in such a way that we remain within the bounds of what is financially possible, and we do not enter into financial commitments for the post-2006 period. I surely do not have to explain to Parliament that it is not even possible to negotiate in such a way as to produce financial commitments that Parliament and the budgetary authority have not covered. You would never adopt an enlargement treaty of that sort if it involved financial risks. Enlargement, though, puts us at no financial risk. I have my own hunches as to why, certain discussions have been launched in certain Member States and using certain documents. My position as a member of the European Commission does not, unfortunately, permit me to express my thoughts on the subject.
I might perhaps be permitted to observe that the European Union's budget permits neither tax increases nor indebtedness, so that we really cannot budget more than the Member States make available to us as contributions, and perhaps every Minister of Finance in the European Union ought to be aware that that is the case.
The discussion on the Beneš Decrees has encouraged me to continue with the Commission's cautious way of dealing with this issue. I would ask for all those who wish to participate in this discussion to do so with the utmost sensitivity and care. Not all the strident voices of recent times have helped us to get closer to the objective. I agree with all those who say that, beyond the subjects of the negotiations themselves, there are issues and problems that should be resolved before we come to any decisions, as we do not want to have to drag burdens from the past behind us on our way into our common European future."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples