Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-03-15-Speech-3-235"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060315.21.3-235"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, enlargement is the EU’s greatest success in terms of European cooperation. The unification of East and West in May 2004 marked the end of the division of Europe and showed what power there is in the dream of a unified Europe based on democracy, free trade and respect for the rule of law. EU membership was the spur that helped the powerful forces for reform in the former Communist dictatorships. The prospects of EU membership are also hugely important to the negotiations and reforms in Turkey and the Balkan states. In these regions, the EU has incredible reserves of what is known as soft power and which contributes to a more stable and more democratic Europe. We in my group believe that it is important, as the Treaty says, for us to keep the door to continued enlargement open. Naturally, the criteria must be applied, and the EU’s capacity to receive new countries is an important consideration. We need, however, to change internally and to engage in the debate about enlargement without putting the blame on it.
I am aware of the fact that there is an ongoing debate in many countries and concern about the rapid pace of EU enlargement and about the way in which things might develop. That conversation must be conducted respectfully and straightforwardly, but we must also dare to stand up for the advantages of enlargement and to call attention to these. In that context, the debate about economic protectionism is extremely worrying. We have a responsibility for neighbouring countries. Our promises to the Balkan states and to Turkey must be kept. It is they that set the pace, and we do what we can to speed things up. We must also keep the door open for other countries such as Ukraine and perhaps also, one day, Belarus, even though the situation there now is incredibly troubled. The hope of EU membership is what keeps the opposition and the forces of democracy alive there.
That is why we are opposed to defining Europe’s geographical borders. This Parliament has given impetus to enlargement, and, a year ago, we stood in the Chamber in Brussels, wearing our orange scarves, and applauded President Yushchenko. We adopted a resolution in which we talked of Ukraine’s prospects of membership. That is an objective, and perhaps a distant one. Just as Mr Brok said, the Ukrainian people are poised between democracy and dictatorship. If we establish borders for Europe, they will interpret this in terms of our slamming the door in their face. It would be an historic mistake.
Instead of introducing new concepts such as multilateral agreements, let us – as Commissioner Rehn also said – take the opportunity to customise the neighbourhood strategy for prospective Member States and to give practical shape to it. To now put forward new concepts which we have not properly debated and of whose implications we are unaware does not seem very productive at the moment."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples