Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-12-14-Speech-3-151"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051214.15.3-151"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to start by echoing Mr Van Orden’s comment on an extremely decisive point: the issue of funding. Even though I do not entirely agree with his way of thinking – which will not surprise him – I share his concern regarding the financial perspective, which will neither enable the enlargement of ten new Member States so far to succeed, nor allow us to prepare for the next enlargement under the proper conditions.
Then there is the issue of minorities. In my report, I proposed the idea of self-governance. It was apparent from the discussions in the Committee on Foreign Affairs that many took the view that, while respect for minorities was vital, we should not be giving the Romanian Government orders regarding the method, the procedure or the practical form that this increased autonomy should take. We must avoid meddling and try not to provoke conflicts through clumsy phrasing. On this subject, too, a number of wordings have been proposed by Mr Wiersma, once again, or by Baroness Nicholson. Be it greater decentralisation or cultural autonomy, I hope that, here too, Parliament will be able to affirm the rights of minorities, particularly of the Hungarian minority, whilst remaining flexible.
Finally, we reached a consensus last week that this report should avoid mentioning the rumours regarding the secret activities of the CIA. I still think that this progress report is not the place to express our very real concerns on this subject; it must deal with the accession and only with the accession.
For my part, I would like to thank all those who have worked on these accessions for the support they have given to this report. I am delighted at how it has been improved by their judicious additions. I think that we can do even more during the vote tomorrow morning and I hope that we will take another step towards the accession of Romania on 1 January 2007.
Having said that, I would like to refer you to the spirit of my report, which is to prepare as well as possible for Romania’s accession in 2007, because I too think that both Romania and Bulgaria will be able to accede on 1 January 2007. The report I am presenting aims to be a useful and effective instrument for the coming months. The Commission’s report, which Mr Rehn presented on 25 October, was also exemplary in this regard. I would like to thank the Commission once again for its work and, at its roots, the report I am presenting to Parliament follows the same way of thinking as the Commission’s.
I would like to reaffirm the European Parliament’s friendship towards Romania and our desire to work towards a common objective – to enable enlargement to 27 countries following the fall of Communism and the great liberation movement in Eastern Europe – but, in parallel with that, we must stress that we are serious in our requirements and that our criteria are firmly set. That is why Parliament must both be conscious of the progress made by Romania towards accession – which, I believe, has acted as a catalyst for many changes and reforms – and also show itself to be demanding and vigilant and monitor the practical implementation of these reforms.
In addition, my report is conscious of the problems faced by Romania, particularly in the field of justice and home affairs regarding the transparency of the legal system, the fight against corruption, organised crime, border control, administrative capacity, recognition or protection of the Hungarian minority – to which I shall return – and also in the environmental sphere and in terms of the implementation of legislation. And we are aware that there is a whole series of requirements and subjects on which the Romanian Government needs to focus.
I myself would add that we still have the option of turning to the safeguard clauses. The safeguard clause is not just a gadget. It is a specific and concrete provision and a guarantee of the seriousness of the accession process; even so, it must not be seen as a threat or a punishment, but as a mechanism intended to give Bulgaria and Romania the time they need to prepare for integration in the internal market and to ensure that accession takes place under the best possible conditions both for the existing Member States and for the new ones.
That is the spirit of my report, a spirit, moreover, that closely mirrors that of Mr Van Orden’s report, and I think that, tomorrow, Parliament will be able to demonstrate its desire to take one more step towards accession on 1 January 2007.
I would now like to say a few words on the amendments discussed and prepared in the Committee on Foreign Affairs. There, too, we are very close to consensus and it is true that the report was also adopted by a large majority of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. However, I believe that three or four delicate issues remain that will have to be discussed tomorrow, and I would like to express my feelings in that regard; that is the role of the rapporteur.
First of all, there is the issue of whether to link the cases of Romania and Bulgaria. Although they are, of course, linked in practice, they still need to be judged on their own merits. I myself cosigned an amendment tabled by Mr Lagendijk on behalf of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, adding to paragraph 3 a specific mention of the fight against corruption and of the transparency of the legal system, applicable both to Mr Van Orden’s report and to mine.
A second very delicate and very important issue relates to adoption. It is the subject of an amendment by Baroness Nicholson, whose commitment to the law as adopted in Romania we all know. To my mind, we perhaps need to put more emphasis on the interests of the child and on the legal framework of the UN, in addition to Romanian law, in resolving contentious issues arising from the moratorium – and, as rapporteur, I am aware of a number of such issues. Several amendments have been proposed by Mr Wiersma and Mr Lagendijk. I hope that we will adopt one or other of these amendments or reach a compromise between them."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples