Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-12-13-Speech-3-018"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061213.4.3-018"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I will not repeat what a success enlargement has proven to be to date, as this has been done by many fellow-Members and also by the Commission and the Council, and although it does appear to be a bit of a platitude in this House, it is no unnecessary luxury to spell this out in a European Union where more and more people question the usefulness and necessity of enlargement.
Having said that, it is nevertheless necessary, and also possible to my mind, to learn from the way we have done things so far. As the Commissioner already mentioned, these lessons are in his report and also in Parliament’s reports. I urge you to assess each country on its own merits and avoid making the same mistake by lumping Romania together with Bulgaria. I would urge you not to issue a date too soon, for this will turn against us and against the process. Do not put off awkward issues to the last minute and pay more attention to the implementation than to the pledge. In the debate on these lessons, the term ‘absorption capacity’, which is now called ‘integration capacity’, has suddenly cropped up in the last year. It is a reaction in some people in favour of further enlargement – among whose number I count myself – of fear to take part in this debate, because many opponents of further enlargement have used the term integration capacity as an argument against further enlargement.
I do not intend to mince my words when I say that integration capacity is not an argument in favour of enlargement, or, indeed against it, but we must all be clear what we are talking about.
Allow me to single out two elements. With regard to institutional reforms, I repeat that whilst I am very much in favour of further enlargement including the countries of the Western Balkans and Turkey, I am also persuaded that this enlargement is impossible on the basis of the current Treaties and that we therefore need a fundamental institutional reform. I just think that we in this House should not quibble about the question how exactly this should be done, as long as it is done!
As for the other elements from this discussion on integration capacity, public support is crucial. This is possible only if we, and also our national counterparts, manage to make a good job of putting across the message that the past is valued for what it is worth, so that people do not shy away from underlining the EU’s long-term interests. This also requires political leadership and political courage, which does not take into consideration each and every opinion poll on enlargement which may be slightly less upbeat at this moment in time. All these elements – courage, political leadership, long-term interests – are combined in the debate on Turkey.
I am therefore very much in favour of this House not riding this wave of populism, which is what is happening in some debates in Europe about Turkey. In my country too, I have noticed that those in favour of accession two years ago are suddenly against Turkey joining, because that is the way the opinion polls are tending to go. We must not be dragged into this, not least in this report. That is why as far as Cyprus is concerned – and I will be discussing this item with Mr Brok – Turkey must deliver on its promise, but so must the European Union. That is why I am so pleased with the undertaking given by the Foreign Affairs Ministers that they will talk about the isolation of Northern Cyprus this coming spring. The future of the European Union cannot be built on instability and fear, and this is certainly true of enlargement."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples