Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-06-Speech-3-068"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021106.6.3-068"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Thank you, Mr President. I would like to express my thanks for a good debate. I am looking forward to being able to continue our discussions in the great enlargement debate here in Parliament on 19 November.
Then there is Kaliningrad, as mentioned by Mr Poettering, Mr Titley and Mr Brock. I would like to say to Mr Poettering that the EU-Russia Summit was not moved to Brussels following demands by Russia – it was a decision made by the Danish Government without anyone having requested us to do so. We will not allow ourselves to come under pressure, but neither do I want to spend time discussing with anyone where a summit is to be held. If Mr Putin does not want to come to Copenhagen, we can use another location. I do not want to spend time on this. We are giving priority to enlargement of the EU. I will not therefore get involved in matters of diplomacy and protocol concerning where meetings are to be held. The most important thing is that the meetings are held and that the things which need to be discussed are discussed and that the decisions that need be made are made.
And that is what I hope we can do at the summit between the EU and Russia, that is, make a decision on Kaliningrad as well – a decision which abides by the principles emphasised by a number of Members of this Parliament; in particular, that whatever solution is found must be based on full respect for the sovereignty of Lithuania. In this respect, I would like to stress that purely in principle, enlargement of the European Union can very easily take place without a solution to the Kaliningrad issue. If there is no solution a visa will simply be introduced. It is that simple. Naturally, however, we all have a common interest in finding a solution jointly with Russia, because we have an overall interest in developing a strong strategic partnership between Russia and the European Union. Of course, Russia does not have a veto over enlargement of the EU. We must try to find a reasonable solution to transit from Russia to Kaliningrad, but this must be done with full respect for the sovereignty of Lithuania. The Danish Presidency will keep a watch on this.
Allow me once again to thank you for a very fruitful debate. With a debate on the future of Europe, with a proposal for the frameworks for a new constitutional Treaty and with the possibility of concluding accession negotiations with ten new Member States in just over a month’s time, we are in the midst of crucial decisions – we are standing on the threshold of a new epoch in European history. And enlargement of the EU is the driving force behind all this – it is the key to Europe’s future.
The European Parliament, the Commission and the Presidency have together fought for enlargement. The end is now in sight, and we have today confirmed our common will to see it through and conclude the first round of enlargement negotiations in Copenhagen in December.
With regard to enlargement, I would like to thank you for the many positive remarks made concerning the Presidency’s efforts so far and concerning the course of the Brussels Summit. The Presidency will do its utmost to live up to the confidence that has been expressed here today. I would like to emphasise that hard work will be required over the coming weeks. As Mr Verheugen said, there are a great many issues to be solved. There is a need for considerable political will, but I would like to say that the European Council convinced me that this political will exists and the debate that we have had here today in Parliament has underlined the same thing – that there is a strong political will within the European Union for this enlargement to succeed.
A great many issues have been raised, and there is no way that I can respond to them all. I will therefore concentrate in my response on a number of the main topics that were raised by various Members.
First and foremost, there is the issue of Turkey. Mr Poettering, Mrs Malmström and Mr Schulz all raised the issue of Turkey and the decision on Turkey which may be made at the Copenhagen Summit. Above all, I would like to establish that the very important decision concerning the fact that Turkey is now a candidate country was taken right back at the EU’s Helsinki Summit in 1999.
Turkey is a candidate country. As I have said, this was decided by the European Union back in 1999, and it is my clear opinion that as a candidate country Turkey must be treated like any other candidate country. In other words, Turkey will be able to obtain a date for commencing accession negotiations if and when Turkey fulfils the political criteria. Vice versa, it is important to emphasise that the political criteria must be fulfilled in full in order for the country to be given such a date. Turkey must not be measured by different standards to the other candidate countries. Turkey must be treated exactly like any other candidate country.
At the European Council in Brussels, we expressed recognition of the progress that has been made. The Commission made it clear in its progress report that Turkey does not yet fulfil the political criteria. Naturally we must now keep a close eye on political developments in Turkey following the elections that have been held, and we must then find a balanced solution at the Copenhagen Summit. I consider it too early at present to give a final answer regarding the decision which may be made at the Copenhagen Summit, but let me stress that in order to obtain a date Turkey must fulfil the conditions just like every other candidate country.
The second topic that has been raised by various Members is agriculture and budgets. Mr Poettering started by asking why we were discussing the long-term financial outlook of the EU Summit here in Brussels at all. Well, the answer is very simple: it was a precondition for the Presidency and the Commission being given a mandate to complete negotiations with the candidate countries, because certain countries made it a requirement that a decision
to be taken on the long-term financial outlook. My opinion the whole time has been that we must not set new advance conditions for a decision concerning enlargement of the EU, but we reached this compromise, which I consider to be a reasonable compromise. Then Mr Barón Crespo and Mrs Malmström asked: yes, but does the decision made at the EU’s Brussels Summit mean that we can still discuss reforms and agricultural policy? Here, I would like to make it clear that the EU’s Brussels Summit expressly did
take a position on the matter of future reforms of agricultural policy; therefore the conclusion is that the Commission’s mid-term review remains on the table. The Council will continue to discuss the Commission’s mid-term review of agricultural policy. Moreover, I know that, as early as this afternoon, a debate will take place in which the Danish Minister for Food will participate as President-in-Office of the Council and this emphasises the fact that the mid-term review is still on the table. In this respect, I might refer to some key phrases in the conclusions of the Brussels Summit, in particular section 12, which states that direct payments etc etc would be introduced without prejudice to future decisions on the common agricultural policy and the financing of the European Union after 2006, nor to any result following the implementation of paragraph 22 of the Berlin European Council conclusions, nor to the international commitments entered into by the Union
in the launching of the Doha Development Round. These are very important statements because they mean that the European Union can of course continue to meet its international commitments within the frameworks of the Doha negotiations, and they also mean that the mid-term review is still on the table, is still up for negotiation and will be decided in accordance with the applicable procedures in the Council.
The issue of the safeguard clauses was also raised. The issue of safeguard clauses was mentioned by Mrs Malmström, along with others. I would like to emphasise that there are two types of safeguard clause. Firstly, there is a general safeguard clause, and secondly, there are two specific safeguard clauses. The two specific safeguard clauses concern the common market and legal and internal affairs. As far as the general safeguard clause is concerned, it is symmetrical in the sense that it can be invoked by both old and new Member States. Where the specific safeguard clauses are concerned, these can only be invoked in respect of the new Member States, but it is an important aspect that the point of the safeguard clauses is actually to avoid them being invoked; they will only be invoked if the new countries do not abide by the acquis that they have undertaken to abide by and, since we expect them to abide by this acquis, I hope that the issue of invoking safeguard clauses will not become relevant.
In connection with the general safeguard clause, I would like to underline the fact that we are already familiar with these from earlier enlargements of the EU. In fact, we have always had safeguard clauses. I may mention that when my own country – Denmark – joined the then EC, there was a safeguard clause lasting for five years. The level of trust in Denmark was thus not sufficient to reduce the requirement to less than five years. When Spain and Portugal acceded to the EU, there was a safeguard clause lasting up to seven years. When Sweden, Finland and Austria became members, there were safeguard clauses lasting up to one year. We are thus already familiar with safeguard clauses and therefore it is not a case of discrimination against the new members."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"had"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples