Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-09-Speech-2-248"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040309.9.2-248"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, before I discuss the Commission proposal, I should like to ask whether we ought to attach any political significance to the fact that Mr Patten has left the Chamber and has been replaced by Mr Verheugen, because as far as I know, Mr Verheugen is still responsible for candidate Member States and acceding countries. Is this an indication from the Commission that the Western Balkan countries, although, officially, they are not yet among candidate Member States, have now suddenly been included among their number? Let there be no misunderstanding: I would welcome it. It is, in any case, striking.
As far as the proposals themselves are concerned, the Commissioner has already referred to their source, namely last year's Thessaloniki Summit. At that summit, the European Council, under considerable pressure from the Greek Presidency, wanted to make a gesture towards the Western Balkan countries, the most important political message being that they have very definitely turned into the road to Europe and that the EU wants to help them on that path by offering them an additional instrument in the form of European Partnerships. The reason for this initiative was that there is no doubt, including in this House, that those countries will be members one day. The question is only when and under what conditions. However, when I read the Commission proposal implementing the fine decision of Thessalonica, I am, quite honestly, very much starting to doubt whether that decision was such a wise one. What is – and that is at the same time the central question in my report – the added value of introducing a new instrument, namely the European Partnerships, at this present time? We in the European Union – you know this better than we do – are involved in an extremely complicated process of concluding Stabilisation and Association Agreements with all the countries of the region, or at least, that is the goal towards which we are working. We managed to do this with Croatia and Macedonia, and we are still negotiating with the three other countries. This process is jerking along. It is not easy. There are still major problems in three of the five countries, and there is still a great deal of work left to be done.
Now all of a sudden, in the middle of that process, along comes a new instrument, the European Partnerships. These do not follow the Stabilisation and Association Agreements, but cut right across them. Commission, I really have to say that I fail to grasp the meaning of this; I think that the Commission, like Parliament, is bound by the Council's brief, although it, like we, cannot say so out loud. I fear that the new instrument that has been created is one that nobody needs and for which nobody is waiting. It creates uncertainty in the region and I think that we have to be very careful not to hand those countries an empty shell, while we ourselves are unsure as to what we want from this initiative. Here, politics is being played with symbols, and we have to tread very carefully indeed.
If we persevere with this initiative after all, I should like to make two observations. First of all the finances which are normally speaking part and parcel of partnerships such as these – suffice to look at the great example of these European Partnerships – namely the partnerships that have preceded the status of candidate Member State. If we create a new instrument after all, why do we not set aside some new money at the same time? Your colleague, Commissioner Patten, has repeatedly told this House that, as far as he is concerned, it is no trouble to spend the money that he now has at his disposal, and that he would like to receive more money from Parliament in order to help those countries. That is why I can accept the concept of European Partnerships, provided that it is clear how much money we are willing to contribute. If no additional funds are being set aside for this than are already available, then the whole initiative is nothing but an empty shell.
What is more important is the conditions. The new instruments should not impose yet another set of new conditions. We have subjected EU assistance to those countries to very strict conditions as it is: the return home of refugees, the fight against corruption and cooperation with the Tribunal in The Hague. I urge you to leave it at that. Whilst I am pleased that the Commission has stated in this context that the existing conditions will not be changed, this should be made sufficiently clear. The new instruments should not involve any new conditions. I am, however, very much in favour of the European Union adhering to the existing conditions to the letter, because now and again, I have noticed in the Council a tendency to go over these lightly and not to adhere to the criteria that were established in the past. This is, however, necessary. The root-and-branch approach has to be adopted, because the problems in that region are extensive and if we create the impression that the countries in question will automatically become members at some point, things will go wrong. Let it be clear: I am in favour of carrying on, of giving the reforms and reformers my warm support. The European Union has no choice but to back those countries and the pioneers who carry out reforms. If we need new instruments to achieve this, so be it, but if we can make a good deal of progress with the present instruments, whilst the new ones only create uncertainty, I will reject the new ones."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples