Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-23-Speech-3-057"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021023.1.3-057"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I wish to answer briefly the questions that have been put to me directly, starting with the weaknesses to which the regular reports have drawn attention. I want to reiterate very clearly that we have been tasked with producing regular reports only on the future member states. I do not know what would emerge if we were to write regular reports on the current Member States, applying the same yardsticks and using the same instruments. Do you think we would come to the conclusion that there was no corruption anywhere? Do you think we would come to the conclusion that privatisation was carried out in a transparent manner everywhere? Do you think we would come to the conclusion that concentration in the media had no adverse effects on the free expression of opinion? Or do you believe that I could not show you, in any city in any of our Member States, a district in which people live in the same degradation that one finds in a settlement of Roma in Slovakia, Bulgaria or Romania? I just think that consideration of the social reality in our own societies gives us no reason to feel superior.
Let me end with a brief comment on Kaliningrad. What very much worries me about this whole debate, is the fact that the Russians have not, to date, been prepared to talk about the real problem. I do not believe that the issues of access, visas and transit constitute the real problem and agree wholeheartedly with what Mr Brok and others have said. Looking at the conditions on this border, you cannot actually believe that easier access is the real issue. I think the real problem is how to conduct a policy that prevents Kaliningrad from remaining socially and economically backward in a region that is developing very rapidly – which this region will do. The inevitable consequence of that will be the growth of economic and, eventually, political tensions. Everyone in this Chamber is capable of imagining how political tensions can vent themselves in a geographical situation like this one. That is precisely what has to be avoided, and we will do it by engaging in a dialogue with Russia on how we can give Kaliningrad a share in the benefits that European integration offers to the Baltic region as a whole. I hope that, when this vexatious issue of visas and transit is sorted out – which I believe it will be in a matter of days – the way will be open for us to discuss this question, which is of such importance to the future of Europe.
The mere fact that there are no reports on progress in the Member States does not in the least mean that they must in every respect be superior to the countries that now want to join us. This question demands of us that we keep our feet on the ground to some degree and be fair in passing judgment. Nor do I believe that it might be possible for a member of the Commission to call on the head of a Member State's government to join with him in seeking out the worst civil and social blackspots and to announce to the nation's media that he is ashamed of these conditions and that he will do away with them. As to whether any head of a Member State's government can be found willing to do that, I have serious doubts.
If I may turn to the monitoring of the safeguards, the monitoring instruments are many and varied, and they will all continue to be applied. It is of course the final monitoring report six months prior to accession that is crucial. The political pressure alone that this report will exert will be so strong that we really can safely assume that the remaining deficits will be dealt with by then.
The situation as regards the safeguards is that I have told both the Council and, as recently as last week, the Dutch Government, that the new instrument on safeguards, which we are proposing, must be of limited duration. The point must come when, again, it is the Treaty's ordinary instruments, rather than derogations, that take effect. The two-year period that the Commission has proposed does not yet, however, exhaust the possibilities offered by the law. Perhaps I have expressed that in rather complicated terms, so, to put it another way, there is still a certain amount of room to manoeuvre as regards the timeframe, and the Commission has no objection to the Council making full use of it.
I would, though, like to say quite definitely, that the instrument as a whole will be of no use if complicated procedures have to be involved and we need such things as unanimous Council resolutions in order for it to be applied. In that case, we can forget it.
And, in that case, we will not need it. Putting it bluntly, this is about having something that enables us to deal with smaller problems very quickly and not always having to set in motion the big weapon of infringement proceedings. If, then, the products of a slaughterhouse in one of the countries are below standard, we have to be able to close the place down the next day. By that I mean the very next day, and not only after the Council has come up with a unanimous resolution on the subject! It is simple, practical things like this that are at issue, and the European public will not be mollified if we have to tell them that such an instrument can only be applied if it has gone through a procedure lasting for months. Let me say this in all frankness: nothing is any use unless it can be put into action quickly and decisively.
Passing on to the matter of scope, the concept of the internal market applies to everything that has economic effects across borders, or to everything that has an effect on competition. The honourable lady did indeed ask whether environmental and social matters might be included here, but I have my doubts as to how that might be justified. If we find somewhere where the environmental
is not being fully transposed, I do not know why we should have, in the candidate countries, a fast-acting instrument whilst having to use normal infringement proceedings as regards the present Member States. There are now thousands of infringement proceedings every year, so it is not the case that the problem of non-transposition of the acquis in the present EU does not exist. I think, then, that I would have difficulties with us actually restricting this instrument to the internal market. Apart from that, there are safeguard clauses in every imaginable policy area of the European Union, food safety being one example. The safeguard clauses that already exist will continue to do so, and they will, of course, be applied."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples