Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-19-Speech-3-191"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031119.7.3-191"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I should like to comment on just a few issues. Firstly, differentiation, which is of course a key component of the Commission proposal. Our approach is based entirely on differentiation, which means that each country is treated individually. It is not a multilateral project, but a bilateral one, tailor-made for everyone, and that is why Russia is not treated in the same way as Libya; that would simply be impossible and quite frankly it would be foolish even to attempt to do so. This also means that the scope and substance of the common ground will vary quite considerably, at least at the outset. At some point in the distant future it may be possible for all of the trains to call at the same station, but for a long time there will be differentiation. Obviously, the idea of our concluding a free movement of workers agreement with the countries of North Africa in the foreseeable future is just as inconceivable to me as it is to Mr Gahler. But no one has mentioned this possibility either.
My final point is this: several speakers complained of a lack of conceptual clarity and consistency. I am rather surprised by this. I think that the concept is actually quite clear. We want to have a policy that is designed for all those countries that will be our next-door neighbours after enlargement, whether through shared land or sea borders. As Romano Prodi rightly said, these countries stretch from Russia to Morocco. Obviously it would be an easy matter to draft an overall strategy for all European countries and all neighbouring countries outside Europe, who are not Members of the European Union, by quite simply combining the strategies and policies that are already in place – in fact I could do this over the coming weekend if you wished. But it would do nothing to change the fact that we would have to apply different instruments in the western Balkans and Turkey, for example, from the ones that we need to apply in say Libya or Syria, because our objectives in respect of the western Balkans and Turkey are quite different. Mr Brok’s attempt is honourable, and I will not hold it against him either – I know exactly what he wanted. Mr Brok will certainly agree with me when I say that writing an alternative to accession for Turkey in a formal Council or Commission document at this stage would amount to announcing the end of the common strategic approach. You can certainly demand this, Mr Brok, but the Commission is unable to comply."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples