Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-03-Speech-3-047"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020703.2.3-047"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"First and foremost, I would like to thank you for a good and constructive debate. I have noted many important and insightful observations that I will take with me when I go away from here today. I will attempt to answer as many questions as possible, but the time I have available for answering questions unfortunately does not allow me to answer all the questions raised, but I would also like to ask that our European Affairs Minister be given opportunity to answer some of the questions. A number of election campaign speeches have been given here in the House. That is perhaps only right and natural, but I do not intend to get involved in the election campaign in individual countries.
(
)
I would also like to answer the questions put forward by Mr Barón Crespo, whom I also thank for his good wishes concerning the Danish Presidency. I would like to correct a misunderstanding. The Danish Foreign Minister did not talk about using a stick against the applicant countries. On the contrary, we are preparing for real negotiations with the applicant countries. I would say to Mr Barón Crespo and also to Mr Bonde, who went into the matter of future reforms of agricultural policy – and here I am also talking as Danish Prime Minister – that Denmark supports future reforms of agricultural policy. I only wish, as President-in-Office of the European Council, to establish that such agricultural policy reforms should not be made a new condition of implementation of the enlargement of the European Union.
Mr Barón Crespo also raised the matter of the Middle East, as did Mr Laschet later in the debate. I would like to say that the Danish Presidency is currently considering how the EU can best contribute to restarting the peace process in the Middle East. I believe that, amongst other things, this will start to set in motion a process which may lead to reforms in Palestinian self-rule; after all, elections are not that far off. The aim of our current deliberations is to create a basis for a later peace conference in which the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations can be resumed. I can state that the Danish Foreign Minister will be discussing this matter with the US Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Colin Powell, later today – as is only natural, since we are endeavouring to bring about close cooperation between the EU, the United States and other members of the Quartet in respect of this matter. It is the intention of the Danish Presidency that the European Union can and should play a constructive part in the attempts to get the peace process in the Middle East restarted. Moreover, I can tell Mr Barón Crespo that the Danish Presidency is a great supporter of the community method in the EU. Unfortunately, time does not allow me to go into more depth with regard to the work of the Convention, but we consider it to be of the utmost importance.
Then several speakers have raised the matter of Cyprus. Mrs Maes, Mr Alavanos and Mr Tannock raised the matter of Cyprus. I would like to emphasise that the Danish Presidency will stick to the decisions made in Helsinki, which consist of three elements. Firstly, a solution to the Cyprus problem, such that it becomes a united island that we can include in the EU, would be an advantage; secondly, a solution is not a new condition of enlargement; thirdly, the Helsinki declaration states that when a decision is to be taken all relevant factors will be taken into consideration. And I would like to say to Mr Alavanos that there is nothing new in this. It is a decision taken in 1999 in Helsinki. The Danish Presidency will act on the basis of this decision and there is complete agreement between the Commission and the Presidency regarding the Cyprus issue.
(
)
Moreover, Mrs Frahm and Mr Krarup, who represent Denmark in Parliament, made contributions that I consider to be part of the discussion of and campaign for domestic policy in Denmark. I do not intend to go into that either. I think that the European Union has such great matters to deal with that we might well wish and expect a debate in the European Parliament to concentrate on European visions and not on the petty polemic of domestic policy.
(
)
I would like to thank Mr Poettering for his support of the Danish Presidency and I would like to say to Mr Poettering, Mr Watson and Mrs Maij-Weggen, who all raised the matter of openness, that it is the intention of the Danish Presidency to administer the rules on openness in such a way that there is the greatest degree of openness possible within the decisions made. I shall make no secret of the fact that I would like to have gone further with regard to openness, and I will work towards greater openness in respect of the legislative work in the European Union, but for the time being a decision has been made in Seville and the Danish Presidency will administer it in the broadest sense that we can.
Then Mr Poettering raised the matter of better legislation. We attach the greatest importance to this and we look forward to interinstitutional cooperation that will bring about better legislation. We will give this the very highest priority. Mr Poettering mentions the matter of Turkey. It is clear that as a candidate country Turkey must be treated the same as every other candidate country, i.e. Turkey cannot be given a date for starting negotiations concerning membership of the European Union until Turkey meets the political conditions – the Copenhagen criteria. Turkey does not do so at the current point in time.
Then Mr Poettering raised the matter of agricultural policy, as did Mr Watson. I would like to answer Mr Poettering and Mr Watson jointly, and at the same time take the opportunity to thank Mr Watson for his support of the Danish Presidency. I agree entirely that we must urge every country and every political leader in Europe not to let the enlargement of the European Union be held to ransom by their agricultural policy ambitions.
(
)
It would be a historic mistake of major proportions if anyone were to block the enlargement of the European Union because of disputes concerning a monetary amount which is, after all, of marginal importance. Let me firstly remind you that the Commission’s proposal means that the enlargement of the EU can be carried out within the frameworks of the existing budget. We do not need more money in order to implement enlargement of the European Union; and secondly, the Commission’s proposal concerning the gradual phasing in of direct subsidies to farmers in the new Member States will mean a small, modest amount of extra expenditure – extra expenditure that corresponds to less than one thousandth of the value of total production in the current Member States. I refuse to believe that any political leader in Europe wants to block the enlargement due to disputes over an amount that is less than one thousandth of production."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples