Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-04-12-Speech-2-220"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050412.27.2-220"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I will be brief. Your debate has uncovered a number of very useful and very interesting pieces of information. I thought I detected, through all of the interventions, that Parliament is able to give broad support to the accession of these two countries, Bulgaria and Romania.
Stop and think for a moment. If there had not been the prospect of accession for these two countries, where would they be today? Would they have developed in the way that they have? Would democracy have made the progress that it has done in these two countries? The prospect of accession, the prospect of becoming fully-fledged members of the European family, has acted as a powerful catalyst for the reform of these two countries.
Today, then, we should certainly not – as has been said – demoralise or discourage these two countries. That is why the road to accession should now be made tangible.
It is also true that there are areas requiring improvement and action. Some of you mentioned the very serious issue of corruption. We need to urge the governments of the two countries – of one of them in particular – to fight even more effectively against corruption. We should encourage, even oblige, these governments to put in place more independent and more effective judicial systems.
I am sure that the Commission will be more than an observer: it will take effective action; it will monitor developments in these countries; it will not take the easy option, as the Commissioner has plainly said.
Nevertheless, today we must send out an important political signal to Bulgaria and Romania. We must have a degree of confidence in these two countries, while showing them that the way ahead is clear. The commitments must be respected. Moreover, that is why the safeguard measures laid down for these two countries differ slightly from those that were provided for at the last enlargement, and the differences are not purely stylistic. These are practical measures that can be applied. And they will be applied all the more effectively if your Parliament monitors developments in the two countries, as I am sure it will.
I should like to comment on the doubts expressed in particular by Mr Hänsch about the Council’s willingness to listen to Parliament. I think that you made an important point. Parliament has always been a valuable ally in enlargement processes and the Council wishes to keep this ally with a view to future enlargements. Everyone is fully aware of this, and it is not empty words when the Council says clearly that full account will be taken of Parliament’s position if it expresses a view on the possible invoking of the safeguard measures. I therefore believe that you can be more reassured than you appear to be.
I have already commented on the financing. I believe that the Presidency has one regret: not to have resolved the issue of the joint declaration more satisfactorily. But I would also reiterate what I said before: be quite sure that Parliament’s rights will remain intact, because they arise from the treaty, and Parliament’s rights will also remain intact in the context of the interinstitutional agreement."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples