Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-19-Speech-2-087"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021119.2.2-087"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, since we have had the historical dimension vividly presented to us this morning, I would like to start by referring to the immense efforts that the candidates for accession have put into completing the process of transformation. I believe that there was in many of these countries a politically courageous attitude, with a willingness to have recourse to unpopular courses of action that were bound to bring about change in their political, economic and social systems. Such measures would in any case have had to be implemented over wide areas, but they were also connected with membership of the European Union. I believe that our own political work has something to gain from such courage and capacity for making an impact.
It will be after Copenhagen that the public will realise that we are taking the first step with ten countries seriously, and that a wide-ranging discussion will ensue in the present Member States of the European Union as to how much further we should go. We will then be able to put a credible case for that only if we say that any further enlargement of the European Union would be acceptable only on the basis of full compliance with the Copenhagen criteria, both political and economic. I believe that the credibility of the entire process depends on this.
It is for the avoidance of any misunderstanding that I tell you that, if Turkey fulfils these conditions, which at present include compliance with the European Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights, and if this forms an integral part of a political development in Turkey, with the armed forces no longer having a political role there, and the rule of law being established in full, then Turkey will have undergone a dramatic change, and we will then have to give sympathetic reconsideration to the possibility of Turkey acceding. Whether it will get there I do not know, but we should give it the chance. That is why it is the political criteria that are crucial here.
I would also like, at the same time, to take this opportunity to thank the parties to the negotiations – the Council, the Commission in particular and the candidate countries, which have, over the past few years, taken upon themselves an incalculable amount of work in order to slowly steer this endeavour to a positive outcome. It must be clear to us, however, that there is still a range of things in this process that need to be put in order. For example, there are still a number of weighty issues remaining to be resolved before Copenhagen, or which will still require adjustments to be made in the ensuing process. By this I mean not only adherence to the transitional arrangements, which must of course be limited in time, but also the issues that we take up in our reports and which have to do with capacity deficits in the administration and justice systems, as well as with minority rights, corruption and trafficking in human beings. These are examples of problems that should be decisively tackled before enlargement becomes effective. I therefore believe that the Commission is taking the right line in concentrating pre-accession aid on these areas in order thereby to create the conditions required by May 2004.
I agree with you that we still have much to do even after these things have been achieved by all parties. We in this Parliament are prepared to make our contribution by keeping to the timetable. It was this House that decided that enlargement should go ahead so that these countries might be able to take part in the 2004 European elections, and in doing so it set a date that the others have adopted. When the accession treaty, amounting to some 6000 pages, is in place, we want to ensure that we can come to our decision by the beginning of April at the latest, so that the planned deadline for signature can be met and so that we can keep to the timetable, according to which ratification is to take place in mid-2004.
There are a number of very tangible issues that will need to be addressed in the course of negotiations. I refer to structural grants and agriculture. I would like again to emphasise that I trust in the wisdom of all the parties to the negotiations, and that these will be conducted in such a format as to make it possible to credibly present the outcome as a success, preventing us from ending up being foiled, in some referendum or other, by things that are trivialities in comparison with the historical dimension. I believe that we must not lose sight of that or be less than fully aware of our responsibilities, and take the view that we will be called on to give further support over the coming weeks. That also means that we have to seriously consider whether, for example, we want to inject a disproportionate amount of money – something that is not going to increase in quantity before 2006 – in the form of direct grants, or whether it might not be better to take a macroeconomic approach and put it into rural development as a whole. That is simply a question that I am throwing out into the room for the benefit of these countries.
I am convinced that we will also succeed in bringing the Kaliningrad issue to a conclusion. I hope that all the disputes surrounding the negotiations will be brought to an end and that the Commission and the Council will soon be able to explain in definite terms what is meant by the ‘travel document light’. The one thing that is clear is the position of the European Parliament: we have to build bridges with Russia, but it must be made clear that Lithuania will become a Member State of the European Union without reservation, that we consider the interests of a small sovereign state, and that we will not accept any solution that impedes, hampers or delays Lithuania's entry into the Schengen system.
I see this as an important pointer to the coming weeks. I hope that the results of previous negotiations will serve as a basis on which everything will run smoothly.
I also wish to make clear that both the countries with which no conclusion is as yet in sight must be able to rely – if they complete the negotiations and fulfil the conditions – on us not discovering a new veto and a new alibi and shutting the door on them. This should also serve to reassure such countries as Bulgaria and Romania.
I hope that the Cyprus issue can be resolved on the basis of Kofi Annan's proposal, which I believe to be an important step forward in terms of the European Union's internal and external relations and also of the establishment of peace in the Mediterranean, quite independent of accession and EU enlargement, but connected with it. I do think, however, that the achievement of something as self-evident as this must not go hand in hand with watering down the Copenhagen political criteria in order to gain a political trade-off."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples