Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-26-Speech-3-043"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060426.10.3-043"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, the process of Romania’s and Bulgaria’s joining the European Union has now reached a crucial stage, that of the decision that our institutions must take in order to confirm or postpone these two candidate countries’ date of accession, which is scheduled for 1 January 2007. Following the exchange of opinions that we had with Mr Rehn during April’s plenary, my fellow Members, Mr Brok and Mr Van Orden, and I thought that it would be helpful if Parliament were to keep itself informed, on the one hand, of the arguments put forward by the Commission in terms of setting the date on which these two countries will join and, on the other hand, of the nature of the monitoring process of which their reforms are, and will be, the subject.
From this perspective, the role of the European Parliament, that of the rapporteurs, and my own role as rapporteur for Romania could be supervisory roles that I would describe as rational and fair, in the context of which we will fully exercise our right to inspect. That is why, three weeks prior to the presentation of the Commission report on the state of progress of reforms in Romania and Bulgaria, we have come to an agreement to submit this oral question, and to do so in the spirit that Mr Brok was outlining just now: far from wishing to give a premature verdict on the two countries’ membership, we simply want to put in practice
to implement
Parliament’s right to be informed by the Commission of the latest developments in the monitoring process. It is in this spirit of openness that we are submitting this question, which is focused on points that are the subject of genuine concerns and of in-depth debates, as borne out by the previous progress reports, particularly in the crucial areas of justice and of the fight against corruption.
I believe that, in the context of the support that we are giving to Romania during these months of accelerated reforms, we are establishing two important notions
the rate and consistency of the progress made
while remaining aware, however, that there is no such thing as a perfect political system and that a significant amount of progress has already been made. The fact remains that we are not weakening in our resolve. Our concern remains one of knowing whether or not the Commission – and this is indeed the crucial question – has discovered, throughout recent months, exceptional reasons for alarm that should be brought to our attention. I do not wish to anticipate the report - that is not the aim of our debate - but I will say that, from a personal viewpoint, it seems to me that the Commission has not made such a discovery.
There obviously remain points on which Romania ought to continue to make progress. That being said, the country’s current situation and the speech
relatively optimistic in this regard
made by Mr Rehn during the plenary session at the beginning of this month do not appear to reveal any major weaknesses that should be addressed with as radical a measure as postponing the date of accession. Allow me, moreover, to point out that a decision such as this could have a harmful effect on the Romanian authorities’ and people’s motivation to press on with the vast reform programmes that have already been embarked on, while accession – provided, of course, that we decide that it does not present any danger – would make it possible to stay within this virtuous circle.
It is from this angle that the postponement clause must, in my opinion, be considered. Its aim is clear: it provides an antidote to a significantly dangerous situation. In my opinion, it would be dangerous to overuse the postponement clause or to use it in order to voice various concerns, which are certainly understandable but which call for a different response. With regard to less radical concerns, the aim of our oral question was to highlight the other safeguard clauses, which are of an altogether different nature and are much less dramatic. They offer the possibility of continuous and more flexible supervision during the first three years following Romania’s accession to the European Union. It would therefore fall to the Romanian authorities to address the various anxieties that could remain in relation to specific points while keeping in mind two crucial points: not only that of respect for Romanian sovereignty, of course, but also that of the demands attendant on accession to the European Union."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples