Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-23-Speech-3-013"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021023.1.3-013"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, we unreservedly support the political objectives set out here both by the Council and by the Commission in the persons of President Prodi and Commissioner Verheugen, but we must also point out that the European Union is in a very grave situation. What we have heard indicates that the prospects for the summit now being held in Brussels are not very rosy.
This is our collective duty if our European continent is to have a good future.
On behalf of our group, I would again like to make very clear that we had always envisaged a timetable according to which negotiations would be concluded by the end of 2002, with the treaties then being signed in March or April and the accessions formalised in 2004, so that the candidate countries would be able to take part in the 2004 European elections.
Now, Commissioner Verheugen has just made reference to Germany and France. I agree on the importance of these two countries coming to an understanding, but, along with our group, I consider it a serious political error now to attach new conditions to the completion of the negotiations out of the desire for a new financial framework for the post-2006 period and perhaps even sooner. Mr Böge, who is an expert on Budget matters, has confirmed to me, and I would like to point out, that Article 25 of the Interinstitutional Agreement states that the adjustment of the Financial Perspective, and hence the allocation of the funds that enlargement will require between 2004 and 2006, can be decided on only on a proposal from the Commission and by a qualified majority in the Council as well as an absolute majority of members and three-fifths of the votes cast in Parliament.
This, then, is where Parliament also has a part to play. I very much hope that an agreement can now successfully be reached in Brussels, as both Mr Haarder and Mr Verheugen have said. For if no success is forthcoming from Brussels, negotiations will be held up. I have to say, speaking for my group, that we regard delaying the negotiations in such a way as irresponsible if it means that they cannot be concluded by the end of this year. That is why the appearance of these new conditions at this juncture is a grave political error. It would have been possible to discuss them at a much earlier stage. It would be a tragedy if the candidate countries were to end up losing out because insufficient agreement had been reached within the European Union.
I agree wholeheartedly with what Commissioner Verheugen said about the candidate countries having done their duty over recent years, but it is the fault of certain of our Member States that we in the European Union have failed to do what had to be done. We would be in breach of the trust placed in us by the candidate countries if we were to fail to come to an agreement in Brussels now. I call upon all the parties involved to unite in Brussels and make the task of the Danish Council Presidency easier, enabling us to conclude the negotiations in time for Copenhagen.
Reference has been made to public information, and I can emphatically underline what both President Prodi and Commissioner Verheugen have had to say on the subject. Commissioner Verheugen, Parliament also needs to hear what is actually being done with the funds that the Commission has allocated to information work, in order to give better information on the use made of these funds to our voters, whom we of course have to take with us along this road.
Mr Haarder also mentioned how Kaliningrad will be a topic of discussion in Brussels. Whatever the necessity of resolving the problems Russia has with transit – and there is no doubt that Russia has a major interest in this – it is important for us that we make sure that Lithuania does not get the impression that we in the European Union are now making decisions over its head. On the contrary, Lithuania must be strengthened in its sense of its own sovereignty, and whatever is eventually decided must, of course, be subject to its agreement. The Schengen criteria must also be adhered to. It is on this basis, and also in relation to security, that we of course counsel flexibility in resolving matters with Russia.
The issue, however, is not only access to the Kaliningrad region, for beyond it, of course, lies Greater Russia. There are other problems with borders. Take, for example, the small amount of cross-border traffic between Poland and the Ukraine or that between Slovakia, Hungary and the Ukraine. I urge this House to bear in mind the need to, on the one hand, guarantee security, and, on the other, to use flexible solutions to make it possible for people on either side of the border to meet each other.
In Brussels, you will hear a report from Valéry Giscard D’Estaing, the President of the Convention. Our group and also our party – the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – is, as we have now confirmed at our congress, quite clear about the timeframe involved. We want the Convention to produce a result by the end of June 2003, with, after that, a short Intergovernmental Conference, so that, under the Italian Presidency, we may achieve a Treaty of Rome or a constitution of Rome, a basic treaty for the European Union by the end of 2003. This, therefore, is our call to all the parties involved: let us be ambitious, so that we may, adhering to this timeframe, bring into being the historic project, not only of enlargement, but also of a European constitution within the time allotted us."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples