Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-04-Speech-3-031"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021204.3.3-031"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, former colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, the forthcoming European Council meeting in Copenhagen will play a decisive role in the conclusion of the Danish Presidency. The agenda will focus on two subjects: enlargement and the functioning of the Council in the light of enlargement.
Setting the accession date for the new Member States entails a number of institutional consequences, and it is obviously important that Parliament is fully involved in the discussions on these consequences. I myself have had the pleasure of informing Parliament at all stages of these deliberations. I have already had the occasion to discuss matters: during the last session in Strasbourg, where this and other questions were raised by Mr Barón Crespo; and also last week in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, where we discussed the subject at length.
The Presidency fully understands Parliament’s keen interest in the institutional consequences of enlargement, and is willing to enter into an open discussion on these matters. At the same time, I must also draw attention to the complicated negotiating process under way at this time with regard to enlargement. Agreement must be reached not only within the Council (and within the other institutions), but also – and this is particularly important – with the future Member States. It can be said, therefore, that it is an ongoing, intensive process in which we do not have all the answers yet.
The institutional questions are pressing. They are a necessary part of enlargement as a whole. Questions such as the weighting of individual countries’ votes in the Council and the countries’ representation in the European Parliament constitute an essential part of the accession treaty. We need to make a start now on laying down clear provisions for the transitional period. What we are talking about is primary legislation in line with the treaty. In this connection, I should like to make the point that the European Parliament will have to give its assent, and that the accession treaty needs to be ratified in both existing and new Member States.
Agreement on the accession date of 1 May 2004 is based on detailed discussions on what is desirable and what is possible in the light of the ratification process in both the present and the future Member States. We owe it to the future members not to delay accession for any longer than is absolutely necessary. I believe this goes for us all: Parliament, the Council and the Commission. This means that there is a need for certain transitional arrangements. This was also the case with previous enlargements.
It has been suggested in Parliament that the 2004 elections to the European Parliament be held on an earlier date, for example 9 May. I personally sympathise with this view. The matter was discussed in detail over many years in connection with the revision of the Common Act on direct elections, which has recently been amended (published in the Official Journal of 21 October 2002). All sorts of dates have been considered, but in vain. Unfortunately, I do not believe that further attempts to change the date will bear fruit. It is not the Presidency, however, that is standing in the way of a different, earlier, date.
I hope that Parliament appreciates the situation that the Commission will find itself in during the period between the accession of the new Member States and the investiture of the new Commission. Obviously redistributing the portfolios within the Commission for a period of just half a year is not a satisfactory solution.
The Presidency hopes Parliament accepts that the interim Commissioners from the new countries will not be subject to hearings or approval by Parliament. This avoids any possibility of prejudicing the new Parliament’s opinion of the new Commission. It is of course unacceptable to the new Member States that ‘their’ Commissioners should be approved by a Parliament in which the new countries are not yet represented by MEPs with voting rights.
The proposed solution avoids any possibility of prejudicing the choice of candidates by the President-designate of the European Commission in the composition of the new Commission. It goes without saying that, if the Commissioners from the new countries do not have a portfolio during the period up to the investiture of the new Commission, there is very little point in Parliament's specialist committees holding hearings of the new Commissioners and examining them in specialist areas they do not have. This is why I hope that Parliament can see its way clear to agreeing to the new Commissioners being appointed on the basis of a simplified procedure in the transitional period, until a new Commission can be appointed with the full involvement of Parliament.
Lastly, there is the question of the full participation of the new Member States in the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference. The Council has a clearly defined position on this matter. The new Member States must be placed on an equal footing with the old Member States in the negotiations that will shape their and our common future. And, like the old Member States, they must of course have the right of veto. We cannot in decency do otherwise.
I have endeavoured to explain the complicated institutional consequences of enlargement. I am looking forward to our debate. I will listen very carefully and am open to all good suggestions for realistic alternative solutions. The Council will discuss the institutional consequences of enlargement once more at the General Affairs Council meeting on Monday and Tuesday.
At the meeting, the Chairman of the Convention will brief the European Council on the status of the Convention’s work, and, in addition, the European Council will meet with the President of the European Parliament, Mr Cox. Let me start with the latter. The meeting with the President of Parliament is of course an established tradition at meetings of the European Council; a tradition that the Heads of State and Government view as important and valuable. It is important that the institutions have a regular opportunity to exchange views and discuss key European questions, as we are also doing here today; and as the Danish Prime Minister and I did last week, when we were visited by Mr Prodi, President of the Commission, and Mr Cox, President of Parliament. I am quite sure that the meeting is fresh in their minds.
It has already been agreed that I shall be present myself at the meeting of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs on 10 December. This will be an opportunity for me to brief the competent parliamentary committee on the latest developments, and for a discussion on their significance. In my opinion it is natural that the discussion should take place within this committee, but if Parliament should wish for a different forum for the debate, on the date in question, 10 December, I am, of course, at your disposal.
The Seville European Council instructed the Danish Presidency to continue working on the question as to how the presidency will function in the future in an enlarged EU. The Presidency was to present an initial report at the meeting in Copenhagen. This will mean that we can have an initial orientation debate on the subject there. The Presidency’s report has three models for the form the presidency could take in future, and the report deals in this respect with the question of strengthening the role of the High Representative and the possibility of having an elected President of the European Council.
It is not the intention that the European Council will take a decision on the models. The Presidency will suggest that the further work on shaping the presidencies of the future be continued in both the Council and the Convention, and, as far as the latter is concerned, this forms part of its general discussions on the institutions.
At the meeting in Copenhagen, the Chairman of the Convention will give a report on the progress that has been made in the Convention. This dialogue is very important. With the presentation, last month, of a draft Constitutional Treaty, the work of the Convention entered a decisive phase. The discussions on the details within the framework the chairman presented are making rapid progress. The basis for the Convention’s end product is now being created. In this connection, it is good to see that the draft Constitutional Treaty has given rise to a Europe-wide debate on the form the Europe of the future will take. It bodes well for our common ambition to create European cooperation which is more democratic and has grass-roots support.
Over the whole of its term, the Presidency has worked towards seeing to it that the work in the Convention unfolds in accordance with the aim of producing a good and well prepared input to the Intergovernmental Conference.
As will have been clear from my statement, the European Council has an extensive and ambitious agenda for its meeting. It is my hope and belief that all the countries at the meeting will show the necessary willingness to compromise and help to take the important decisions I have spoken of here.
In Copenhagen we hope to be able to take a historic decision on the greatest enlargement in the history of the Community to date, and I also dare say the enlargement with the most far-reaching consequences and the broadest historical perspective. The great debate on enlargement that took place in Parliament last month is just one example of the strong will Parliament has shown, and the efforts it has made, to make this project succeed. And, as I said at the start, this great project can only succeed if the three institutions work closely together. I believe that they have done so, and I should like to thank Parliament once more for the clear messages it has given out all along when it comes to the enlargement ahead of us.
(
)
If enlargement succeeds in Copenhagen, and it will, this will be another product of the hard work put in by the institutions and their effective cooperation over the last few years.
Enlargement will be the most important item on the agenda of the European Council meeting in Copenhagen. For some months the pace of the accession negotiations has been very fast. We are now close to taking the decision that will seal the reunification of the continent of Europe: the conclusion of accession negotiations with the first group of candidate countries with a view to their accession on 1 May 2004. This has been incredibly difficult and complicated, and it has not yet been resolved. The fact that the possibility of concluding the negotiations now seems to be a reality is due in no small part to the positive result that was attained at the European Council meeting in Brussels.
As you know, the Brussels European Council concluded that ten countries will be ready for membership from the beginning of 2004. The final and decisive negotiations are now taking place. Last week, the Presidency presented a negotiating package for each of the candidate countries. These packages represent the Presidency’s proposal for a definitive resolution of the negotiations. They take into account – as far as possible – the views of the candidate countries, as presented at separate meetings with each individual country, and they are in line with the financial framework for enlargement, that is to say, with the Berlin Agreement and with the decisions from the European Council meeting in Brussels in October.
The Presidency hopes that we can cover a lot of ground – as much as possible – in the negotiations before the European Council meeting in Copenhagen. It is no secret that the final negotiations will not be easy. Given the right willingness to compromise on the part of both present and future Member States, however, I am convinced that we
achieve a successful result.
Enlargement does not end in Copenhagen, however. The European Council also wants to give new impetus to the accession process for Bulgaria and Romania. A decision will be taken on detailed roadmaps and timetables, and pre-accession aid, in order to move forward the accession process with Bulgaria and Romania. The Commission’s communication of 13 November on a roadmap for the two countries is a good step in the right direction.
At the last European Council meeting, in October, the EU welcomed the new reform work in Turkey. The countries of the EU were unanimous in emphasising that the many important reforms in Turkey have expedited the start of accession negotiations with that country. Turkey’s accession will follow the same principles and criteria as those applied to the other candidate countries. The EU is in the process of preparing the decision on the next step in Turkey's candidature. This decision will be taken at the Copenhagen European Council.
The Presidency hopes that a solution to the Cyprus issue can be found ahead of Copenhagen. The EU supports wholeheartedly the UN Secretary-General's endeavours to find a solution. If a solution is not found to the political conflict in Cyprus at the Copenhagen Summit, the EU will take its decision on the accession of Cyprus on the basis of the conclusions from the Helsinki European Council in 1999."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples