Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-04-12-Speech-2-182"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050412.27.2-182"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, in December last year, my group voted against Mr Moscovici’s report because we felt that it took far too positive a view of Romania and that there was no indication whatsoever to suggest that the fundamental problems would be addressed, such as fighting corruption and guaranteeing independent media and a free press. I will be quite honest: if Mr Nastase’s party had won the elections in December last year, then it would have been quite straightforward for my group. We would be voting ‘no’ tomorrow against Romania’s accession. Romania’s old government was part of the problem rather than of the solution, but fortunately, there is now a new government whose priorities are in line with this Parliament’s concerns. Since this new government came into office, it has made it clear that it is serious about tackling the very problems that I mentioned a moment ago. Since then, former ministers and former members of parliament have lost their immunity from prosecution. Twenty-five high-ranking police chiefs who are suspected of corruption have been dismissed, and it is expected that criminal proceedings will be initiated against former ministers on account of corruption.
In short, this government, particularly the Justice Minister, deserves our support. I would like to say to all those who intend to vote ‘no’ that voting ‘no’ to this present government would be to penalise it for the old government’s mistakes. It would destabilise this government and if there is something I do not want, it is the old government back in power. To this government, then, I would urge you to say ‘yes’, but a conditional ‘yes’. It is crucial that this House continues to keep a grip on the enlargement with Romania and that is why I have taken the initiative to demand an undertaking from the Commission and the Council that this House will definitely continue to be involved in the enlargement, even after tomorrow. I am pleased with the rapporteur’s cooperation, and also pleased that cooperation with the Members of this House was a success. I am particularly pleased with the undertaking Mr Rehn gave today, which was also included in a letter by Mr Barroso to Mr Borrell.
Should it prove necessary in future, in the next 18 months, to refer to the postponement clauses, Parliament will have full involvement in this. If this House is of the opinion that too few reforms are being carried out in 2005 or 2006, and that it is therefore necessary to start the postponement procedure in very specific areas, including the fight against corruption, that is then possible and that then creates a political fact which will require a reaction from the Commission and the Council at European and at national level. After all, we should not overlook the fact that the Treaty with Romania and Bulgaria will be subject to ratification and that, in future, their parliaments will be taking into account what is said in this House.
My, or rather our, message to the new government is: yes, we will give you the benefit of the doubt. By all means, continue carrying out reforms, but bear in mind that this House will continue to monitor you with a very critical eye and, as the Commissioner already stated, we will not hesitate to avail ourselves of the postponement procedures should this prove necessary."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples