Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-16-Speech-2-206"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-05-16"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Progress report on the accession of Bulgaria and Romania (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060516.35.2-206"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-05-16-Speech-2-2072
lpv:speaker	lp:Joost Lagendijk2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (2004-09-22--2009-07-13)3 substitute; TRAN (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with the Gulf States, including Yemen (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 unknown; GroenLinks (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 chair; Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-22--2009-07-13)3 member; SEDE (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; G/EFA (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; AFET (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I agree with the Commission’s conclusions where Romania is concerned. Since that country has indeed made substantial progress over the past year, a case can be made for it to accede in 2007. That is why it would be wise to do a kind of final check in the autumn and that it would be very wise, following its accession, to closely monitor it to ensure that this progress that we have seen is also taking hold, although I must say that the sanctions for non-compliance are not very impressive. I also agree with the Commission’s reports where Bulgaria is concerned, because that country is not so much enjoying substantial progress as it is steeped in substantial problems, particularly where the fight against organised crime and corruption are concerned. That is why I do not yet agree with the Commission’s conclusions about Bulgaria. I think it is unfair to lump Romania and Bulgaria together and to say that 2007 is feasible for Bulgaria too. I have to say to the Commission that, if it takes its own reports seriously, then I do not believe that those weighty problems that it has flagged in them can be resolved in five months’ time. I am in favour of coming clean at this stage and saying to Bulgaria that, regrettably, they will not be able to join until 2008. I can see the Commission’s political dilemma, because there is no majority for this option in the Council, the body to which the Commission issues an opinion, but I think it unfair to lump Romania and Bulgaria together until the last moment. Why is it so wise and why would it be good to draw a distinction between the countries based on their own achievements? This is about sending out a message, not only to our own people, but also to new candidate countries such as Croatia and Turkey. The message should be that it makes a difference whether you carry out reforms or not. If you carry them out, it pays off, if you do not, as is the case in Bulgaria, then penalties follow. At the moment, it very much looks like it does not matter what you do, and that the decision for accession depends on internal developments in the EU, opinion polls and votes, rather than on the candidates’ achievements. The lesson we should learn from this procedure is never to mention any more dates, for that then takes the pressure off. If there is cause for any doubt, we would be better off not mentioning a deferral date and we should not give the candidate countries any guarantees to the effect that they will be able to join if they meet the conditions. If they fail to live up to this, they will have to live with the consequences."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Applause)"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph