Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-05-Speech-3-046"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031105.6.3-046"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, honourable Members, when we concluded negotiations with the ten candidate countries a year ago, we did so on the basis of a prognosis that these ten countries would be fully prepared by the date set for accession, that is to say that they would have discharged all the obligations into which they had entered in the course of negotiations. That is the reason behind monitoring; it is there to determine whether or not this prognosis was accurate. The concluding monitoring report that the Commission adopted today is the last one. There have already been two previous reports, which have had very positive effects, and I can tell you that we of course have to expect the media, following the debate in this House, to focus on those points where we say there is something not yet right.
To sum up, then, we come to the conclusion that institutions and policies will continue to function after 1 May 2004, that no appreciable disruptions are to be expected and that, while the possibility of problems cannot of course be excluded, they will be manageable in every respect. All this, then, adds up to a good outcome. I unreservedly endorse, and associate myself with, the Commission’s expressions of appreciation for that and President Prodi’s recent underlining of the especial achievements of these countries’ governments, parliaments and peoples.
With which, let me turn to Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey. I can keep this relatively brief. Both Bulgaria and Romania have made remarkable progress. I would in particular like to stress that Bulgaria has now at last managed to promote reform of the judicial system, which had been a major problem in assessing it.
I would like to highlight the more positive valuation given to Romania in terms of the market economy criterion. The Commission is now stating that Romania can be regarded as a market economy, provided that the reform process continues without change, which we assume it will. This amounts to an appreciation of the significant economic reforms that Romania has already achieved and of the remarkable macroeconomic stability that it manifests.
Turning to how we take matters further in relation to Romania and Bulgaria, the Commission counsels against decoupling these processes from each other. We are sticking to the target of bringing both countries, together, into the European Union in 2007, although the principle still holds that no country should have to wait for another. If, then, it turns out in the course of the ongoing process that they are progressing at different speeds, we will also be able to conclude the negotiations on different dates.
Although we can regard it as a sort of compliment that both countries are very keen to complete negotiations before the present Commission leaves office, we are very cautious when it comes to making a statement about this. I would also appreciate it if Parliament could follow us in not, at the present moment, specifying any dates, but could limit itself to confirming 2007 as the accession date. For that to be the case, work on the accession treaty needs to be completed before the end of 2005. That means that the time window for completing the negotiations is between now and somewhere around the summer of 2005, when, if the country in question really has done everything, it will be possible to conclude them. As a whole, I regard this picture as a favourable one.
I want, though, to again strongly encourage these countries to make determined efforts towards improving political and economic governance; I am referring particularly to corruption and to the fight against economic crime. This is also important in terms of the investment climate in both countries and of making them attractive to investors.
We have tried hard not to prejudge anything where Turkey is concerned, and it can be speculated whether or not the report that the Commission has presented today makes a statement about the decision that is to be taken next year. We have tried hard not to do that, but, instead, to give Turkey fair and objective treatment, and that means that we have to attest and acknowledge the remarkable fact that reforms have been better implemented, and at increasing speed, in both the political and economic spheres. It also means, though, that we have to tell the truth and say that a very great deal still does not meet our standards or conform to our requirements, and that these things have to be addressed. It makes no sense to keep any of this quiet. I noticed that Turkey reacted with a degree of surprise, for one of the consequences of the leak – which is regrettable and, from my point of view, absolutely so – is that I know the candidate countries’ reactions even before the reports are adopted, and the Turkish reaction tends towards astonishment. No doubt they had reckoned on a rather more favourable assessment.
So I want to reiterate very clearly that, although we entirely acknowledge what has been achieved in Turkey, we have to point out to the Turks that there are still problems with a number of issues to do with fundamental rights, that Turkey’s willingness to be bound by the rulings of the Court of Human Rights is still problematic, and that there are, in particular, major problems when it comes to implementing the reforms that have already been decided on. There is a considerable implementation deficit here, and the government recognises this and wants to do something about it.
President Prodi has just made reference to the problem of Cyprus. I must, again, do likewise, because I want to inform you that the Commission has today taken a new step, one that is new and may well lead to controversy. In our strategy paper, we have linked Turkey’s desire for accession to the Cyprus issue.
In order that there may be no misunderstanding, and also with Turkish reactions in mind, let me explain – as I must – that this is not a condition. We have to adhere strictly to the Helsinki conclusions, which state that this is not a condition. It is a statement of fact. We are simply stating the fact that failure to resolve the Cyprus issue would represent a major obstacle to Turkey’s European ambitions. To say that is no more than to state a fact, but I do not, of course, deny that such a statement of such a fact acquires political significance when contained in a strategy document of this sort, and I can also tell you that this political message, this political significance is deliberate. The Commission wanted to make it clear that it can see such a political connection and wanted, in so doing, to encourage Turkey to be even more pro-active in order to resolve the Cyprus question on the basis of the UN’s plan.
It therefore seems to me to be necessary to start by putting this into perspective. In the first place, we did not have to re-examine most of the
as it had already become apparent during the negotiation process that all the requirements had been met. We did not even give it a second look. We only revisited the areas in which issues had remained open during the course of negotiations and in which commitments had been entered into. We divided up this part of the
into 140 sectors of widely varying importance, some of them comprising several hundred legal acts, others only one – and that is just an illustration of the volume involved.
I am firmly convinced that the elections in the Turkish part of Cyprus will open a window of opportunity, and that, in their immediate aftermath, greater pressure must be exerted on all parties in order to introduce some impetus into a situation that has been bogged down for some time. I do indeed think that a message of this sort from Europe helps the present Turkish Government, in that it gives it a strong argument against those elements in Turkey that have been standing in the way of further progress, particularly on the Cyprus issue.
That is something I wanted to explain to you, as the coming days will certainly see wide-ranging international discussion of this question. We have always said that the accession process is intended to be a catalyst for resolving the Cyprus issue, and we must, I think, use every available opportunity to deal with the anachronistic situation of a future Member State of the European Union with a barbed wire fence and UN troops deployed there in order to protect the two ethnic groups from each other. For us as Europeans, that is simply not acceptable, it is unworthy of us …
… and that is why the Commission has decided to take this step. As this is the last occasion on which the Commission will be able to put such comprehensive reports before Parliament, let me conclude by again thanking you very, very warmly for your cooperation, which has always been constructive, fruitful and trusting.
The fact that we had, all in all, 1 400 such sectors to monitor made that an immense task; it is a communal effort by the Commission as a whole, one that, in recent months, had required many hundreds of staff, but I will also claim that this work is very substantial and that the sort of overview we have was never possible at the time of any previous enlargements. I have to tell you that such a thing has never been done in the history of the EU, and it is important that we should know that if we are to properly evaluate what the outcome has been.
It turned out that, in the 1 400 sectors that we monitored, preparations are running perfectly according to the timetable in 70% of all cases and that no comments are called for. In a further 27% of cases, we have noted that some individual points remain to be dealt with, but there are, generally speaking, no grounds for concern. This process is in motion, and, according to our prognosis, everything will be in place on 1 May 2004.
That leaves 3% – precisely 39 instances out of 1 400 – in which we have observed serious omissions and delays that can be compensated for only with difficulty. In these instances, we are telling the future Member States that decisive action has to be taken as a matter of absolute urgency in order to fulfil the conditions in time for 1 May 2004, so that everything in this area, too, can be in good order.
The thirty-nine problem areas are spread out over ten countries. I would advise against attempting to rank them in order; the fact that Poland has ten such areas does not mean that Poland is worse than others. The simple explanation is that a large part of the problems are present only in Poland, as the size of the other countries means that certain of the problems are not found in them. I regard the overall outcome as very balanced. It relates to only a few chapters of the
and we estimate that the problems will be able to be resolved everywhere even before 1 May 2004. If they are not – and it is this point that is crucial – then the Commission will, in good time before 1 May, take the necessary actions, and we have a whole range of options to choose from.
We can apply the safety measures that are in any case already contained in the Treaty. We can apply the specific safety measures provided for in the Treaty of Accession; we can institute normal infringement proceedings; we can make use of administrative interventions. We have, then, a wide range of options, and agreement has today been reached within the Commission that each Commissioner, within his or her own area of responsibility, shall oversee the ongoing handling of these still unresolved issues and shall, if necessary, propose the necessary measures in good time before 1 May.
Speaking for myself, I do not expect this to be necessary, as, in most instances, the adverse consequences resulting from these problems being left unresolved would not affect the Community as such, but only the new Member States themselves. For example, the question was raised of whether the structures were in place to enable agricultural support grants to be paid in full. If administrative structures are inadequate for this purpose, the result will be that the money will not flow, which means that the government that makes itself guilty of such negligence will end up under considerable domestic pressure, because their farmers are not getting their direct support payments. I therefore predict that all these cases will be resolved as a matter of course before 1 May 2004.
Knowing that this House pays particular attention to the area of food safety, I can tell you that there are still a number of problems in this area too, and our position remains unchanged, namely that no food not conforming to our standards – by which I mean our hygiene rules – must be allowed onto the internal market. For that reason, the necessary measures relating to food safety will be taken by February at the latest in order to ensure that no products not complying with the standards get onto the internal market. There are, however, relatively few of them, and people must not get the idea that a country has performed badly in a particular area just because a few firms in a few countries fail to reach the standards."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples