Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-12-13-Speech-3-020"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061213.4.3-020"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, when I read both reports I came across only one pleasant surprise. The entirely black picture of the European Union’s enlargement prospects has been replaced by a grey one. This brightening of the picture should be appreciated. The picture brightened even further today in the form of the rapporteur’s speech, but the picture that is being painted is still far removed from the truth.
In spite of the impression we might get from both reports, it is not the institutional reforms that have made the Union an increasingly stronger player on the international arena. The European Union has gained political clout because it now represents a larger number of citizens, more companies, more territory and greater military and economic influence. Therefore, it is thanks to the enlargements that took place in the eighties, the nineties and most recently in 2004, that the European Union has gained the strength to be a global player. This change did not result from waving the magic wand of treaty reform.
I notice a greater willingness to talk about the resolution of March 2006 on the same issue, but making enlargement conditional on the Constitutional Treaty is simply anachronistic. We can expect institutional changes, but evoking the treaty as it stands can only be interpreted as an excuse for halting the enlargement process for no good reason. A philosophy based on the motto ‘Constitutional Treaty or death’ is neither good nor wise. A similar pretext can be found in academic debates on absorption capacity or integration ability.
European integration is not a chemical or physical phenomenon, and there are no objective laws of nature at play here. Integration is a question of pure political will, which lies in our hands and the hands of our colleagues in the Member States. If we truly agree that enlargements can be equated to success, then the question arises as to why we would want to add thirty clauses based on a philosophy not far removed from narrow-minded, gutless Euroscepticism. Can we really be sure that the quality of integration is suffering due to enlargement? Perhaps the quality of integration is also deteriorating due to the bad policies of the Union itself? Perhaps this quality is suffering as a result of an overloaded agenda, which we force onto the shoulders of the European Union, or of excessively diverse and excessively high expectations?
If we were to refute these criticisms of mine, we would be left with the rather banal truth that candidate countries have to fulfil membership criteria. I doubt whether we need to draw up two whole reports only to remind ourselves of this rather self-evident and long-established principle.
For these reasons I do not want to vote in favour of these drafts, as they appear to be nothing more than a list of pretexts for suspending the integration process without good cause."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples