Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-19-Speech-2-173"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021119.2.2-173"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I should like to thank Mr Bourlanges for his concluding remark which gives me a welcome opportunity now to present my few concluding observations.
First of all, I should like to thank the rapporteurs for the serious work that has gone into the reports. They contain sound overviews, wise deliberations and a number of conclusions. In this way, a serious basis has been laid for the massive support for enlargement that Parliament has confirmed today. It can safely be said that there is huge support. That has now become apparent in this Assembly in the last eight hours. I should like to thank you for your commitment and support.
I should also like to answer a couple of the central questions put to me. Up until the negotiations in Copenhagen – that is to say over the next three weeks – we face a huge task in concluding the negotiations with each of the 10 candidate countries. The Presidency will conduct the negotiations in cooperation with the Commission and with complete respect for the EU rules on expenditure ceilings set in Berlin and for the conclusions adopted in Brussels. That was what the General Affairs Council recommended to the Presidency at the meeting yesterday. The Presidency will make active efforts on this basis and do its utmost to find compromises that are acceptable to both the new and the existing Member States. A great willingness to compromise is required, however, together with great understanding of the other party’s needs and points of view. On the subject of the negotiating situation, it can be said that of course negotiations can take place and of course flexibility can be shown, but I think that everyone in this Chamber agrees that EU law must be respected. The expenditure ceilings set in Berlin must be respected and the decisions taken in Brussels concerning, for example, agricultural expenditure must be respected. Nonetheless, there is a certain room for manoeuvre, as Commissioner Verheugen too has pointed out.
To Mr Bonde, Mr Modrow and quite a few others, I should like to emphasise what Mr Rasmussen also said just before lunch, to the effect that there is no question of the fifteen Member States now going on to write a new treaty to which the 10 new countries then agree, without having had any influence on it. Yesterday’s meeting of ministers again confirmed what is stated in paragraph 23 of the Treaty of Nice, to the effect that the new countries will participate in the forthcoming intergovernmental conference with fully equal rights and with speaking and voting rights that are on a fully equal footing with those of the existing Member States. That is the way things are. Anything else would also, of course, be objectionable, unacceptable and impossible for the politicians in the new Member States to hold referendums on.
I believe it was Mrs Myller who raised the issue of the new neighbours. Following enlargement, we shall of course have new neighbours to the east and, yesterday, at its meeting in Brussels, the General Affairs Council adopted a longer term strategy for dealing with our new neighbours. The Council expressed the desire to formulate an ambitious, long-term and integrated strategy in relation to each of these new neighbouring countries with a view to promoting democracy and economic reforms, sustainable development and trade and for promoting stability, prosperity etc on the other side of the new EU border. It was emphasised that account should be taken of each country’s special political and economic circumstances and that the issue as a whole should be seen in the context of the current deepening of cooperation with Russia. There was also talk of cross-border cooperation, organised crime, illegal immigration and regional cooperation between the new neighbouring countries. I can therefore give an assurance that thought has been given to all of this. It was decided in conclusion that the Commission and Mr Solana should be called upon to prepare more detailed proposals as soon as possible, and the decision was rounded off with words to the effect that the candidate countries would be consulted on this work.
To Mr Alavanos and others who talked about Cyprus, I would state that, as is well known, the UN Secretary-General submitted, on 11 November, a general proposal for solving the Cyprus conflict. This is a complex and extensive proposal covering 150 pages. The plan submitted is designed as an overall political solution to ensure that a united Cyprus is able to join the EU. Where accession is concerned, it is the Helsinki conclusions that continue to form the basis of the EU’s position. The EU would ideally like to see the accession of a reunited island, but a solution in those terms is not a necessary prerequisite for accession. The Council will take a decision on Cyprus’s accession, taking account of all the relevant factors. The EU also supports the UN Secretary-General’s efforts and will be able to endorse an overall solution to the conflict in accordance with the principles on which the European Union is based, that is to say with a view to Cyprus’s being able, as a Member State, to speak with a single voice and to guarantee the correct application of EU law.
With regard to relations with Turkey, these will be based on the European Council’s decision, also taken in Helsinki. Turkey is a candidate country that will be treated in exactly the same way as the other candidate countries. The Commission’s report stated that fulfilment of the political criterion, which is a prerequisite for embarking upon negotiations, has still not taken place. Major progress has been made, however. The economic criteria must be fulfilled no later than upon accession to the EU. At the Copenhagen European Council, a decision will be made concerning the next phase of Turkey’s relations with the EU, and Turkey will in that way receive exactly the same treatment as all the other candidate countries have received.
Last of all, I want to say to Mr Maaten and Mr Arvidsson that we all recognise that enlargement from 15 to 25, and subsequently to 27 or perhaps 28, Member States requires a new treaty. Otherwise, we shall have problems. That is, of course, why the Convention is sitting and why we must have an intergovernmental conference. It goes without saying that we are obliged to take decisions at that intergovernmental conference. From everything I have heard, however – yesterday, too, from the Member States and the new Member States – there is an awareness of the fact that decisions must be taken so as to prevent the bottlenecks Mr Maaten talked about or, in other words, problems involving the inability to take decisions. Mr Arvidsson is, of course, quite right that a Union with so many Member States must also concentrate on the essential issues and not spread itself too thin, for the system could become very complicated if the proximity principle and the principle of subsidiarity were not borne in mind.
With these words, Mr President, I want to express my sincere thanks for this debate of eight and a half hours which signals massive support for the great project we have under way. We have reason to be proud of this support, and I take the liberty of saying ‘we’ for I was involved in starting up the project when I was still an MEP."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples