Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-12-13-Speech-3-012"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061213.4.3-012"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Minister Lehtomäki, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to take this opportunity to thank the Presidency for its excellent and close cooperation during its term, and I would especially like to congratulate it for the decision it took on Monday this week to allow the membership negotiations with Turkey to continue. This decision is a clear signal to Turkey that there are consequences for failing to fulfil its obligations, but at the same time the Council’s decision on Monday managed to prevent a clash in relations between the European Union and Turkey.
However, when improving the quality of the accession process, we should not create something overly complicated. That would only build artificial blockages into a process that is already complicated enough. I believe we are all in favour of simplification, not complication. Therefore, we must have clear rules, clear procedures, that are understood both by our own citizens and by the countries concerned – the candidate countries.
Some wonder whether enlargement is done at the expense of deepening. My answer is ‘no’: the EU has managed to deepen and to widen in parallel before, and that can be done again.
Therefore, a new institutional settlement should have been reached by the time the next new Member State is likely to be ready to join our Union. The European Council agreed a timetable for continuing the institutional reform, starting with a political declaration to be adopted in Berlin next March. The necessary steps to achieve a new institutional settlement should have been taken by the end of 2008.
We need a new institutional settlement to make our decision-making more effective. We need it to strengthen the legitimacy of the Union, and we need it to strengthen Europe’s role in the world. Last, but not least, we need it for the current EU and its citizens today or, by the latest, tomorrow – not just because of potential future enlargement. We need to maintain the momentum of integration, and to deepen and further develop the European Union.
I trust you share these goals of a reformed and stronger Union and I look forward to working with you to achieve these objectives.
This decision shows that the European Union can take decisions on thorny issues like Turkey resolutely and with solidarity, without making a major drama out of it. I trust that this will be appreciated in this House, and I know that it will at least be appreciated by the 26 members of the European Council who will meet on Thursday and Friday and who did not want another Turkey summit at the end of this year.
Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs, Mr Brok and Mr Stubb (who is not stubborn but intellectually most flexible, however his name is pronounced!). I would also like to congratulate the Committee and all the Members for their intensive work on this important subject.
The Commission shares many of the points made in the reports. We welcome in particular your preference for the concept of ‘integration capacity’, as explained by Mr Brok and Mr Stubb. We welcome Parliament’s support for the Commission’s enlargement strategy and its principles, as well as the support for our efforts to enhance communication and transparency.
I agree with Parliament’s view that integration capacity is primarily about the EU’s institutions, budget and policies. But, before I dwell on those points, let me underline the paramount importance of keeping our own strategic interest in mind when considering our integration capacity.
In the current debate in Europe in general, we often talk past one another. Some underline only the strategic significance of enlargement for peace and democracy. Others focus only on internal problems which reduce our capacity to integrate new Member States. If these two discourses do not meet, we run the risk of increasing confusion among our own citizens and eroding our credibility in the candidate countries.
Therefore, we must build up a renewed consensus on enlargement by combining these two sides of the coin. We must keep up the strategic mission of enlargement by maintaining the EU’s soft power of democratic and economic transformation and, at the same time, we must ensure our capacity to function, while gradually integrating new Member States.
For these reasons, the Commission will further improve the quality of the accession process. We shall make impact assessments and evaluate budgetary implications on key policies, especially on agricultural and cohesion policies.
Furthermore, we need to apply rigorous conditionality. Experience shows that the better prepared the new Member States are the smoother the EU functions after enlargement. Difficult issues, such as judicial reform and the fight against corruption, must be addressed at an early stage of the negotiations."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples