Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-02-11-Speech-2-186"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030211.9.2-186"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Commissioner, this is where I must again add something, as the fact of the matter will be that, when it comes to the accession treaties, this Parliament will have an approval procedure preventing us from saying anything more than yes or no. These accession treaties are, of course, binding in international law, and they also stipulate sums of money that would ordinarily, had we dealt with them together and subject to the conditions of the Financial Perspective, have been decided on in the codecision procedure, so that we could have gained some influence over the negotiations. If it is now assumed that the Copenhagen figures will be incorporated into the treaties and will be definitively laid down only in an approval procedure that is to take place very soon, there is, as you said, the
possibility of influencing the Financial Perspective in a codecision procedure involving the interested parties in the budgetary authority, or are we being thrown back on the ‘do or die’ position, in which we can only accept or reject? This notwithstanding the fact that it would go against the overall thinking behind the
devised as long ago as 1999.
Now for my second question. You have announced your intention of creating a category of pre-accession aid that will, in future, include Bulgaria and Romania, and that aid will be increased. Bulgaria and Romania have for the past ten years already been going through a quite specific process covering individual aspects such as the implementation of the
and other such things. You have said that you have proposed that another state be included in this category of pre-accession aid, namely Turkey, which has not, to date, had a status comparable to that enjoyed by Bulgaria and Romania; nor are negotiations with Turkey anything like as far advanced as those with the other states. Are you now putting these countries on one and the same footing? Is the Commission proposing that we aim to give Turkey the same status as Bulgaria and Romania, and what can you adduce in support of this approach, involving as it does an assessment that goes far further than before? If we are talking in terms of pre-accession aid – and we have, in the past, heard various things from various sources, including that President Prodi is an advocate of Croatia and other Balkan countries getting candidate country status – are these countries already included in the category 7 that you are now providing for, or, if not, how are we going to be dealing with them over the coming years?"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples