Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-03-11-Speech-3-330"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090311.36.3-330"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, I would like to speak first and mainly about Croatia. Croatia has made progress in a number of areas. I am very grateful for the efforts which have been made in Croatia itself, in particular, with regard to judicial reform. A number of steps were needed and, as a result of the appointment of two new ministers, some things have been put in motion. I know that ministers cannot do everything, but significant progress has been made on combating corruption and cross-border crime.
Secondly, as far as the question of cooperation with the International Criminal Court is concerned, I would like to state clearly that I expect Croatia to take all the necessary steps in this respect. There have been disputes about different chains of command and the corresponding documents. I hope that these issues will be resolved in the near future so that they do not cause interruptions or delays in the negotiations.
Thirdly, Croatia has also made some moves towards economic reform. I am very pleased about the plans in this area, particularly relating to the shipping industry. It has not been easy, but the important foundations have been laid. I am also happy that agreements could be reached with workers in the shipping industry. These reforms will be painful, but they are necessary and they can be made in a sensible form.
I come now to the main question, which is always controversial, concerning border disputes. Commissioner, unfortunately I must tell you that I am rather disappointed that you have addressed this issue without making contact with Parliament. I have sent you the documents and you have failed to respond. We would probably have made more progress if you had handled these issues with more sensitivity. In order to ensure that no misunderstandings arise, I fully support your proposal for mediation. However, we could have moved further forward if a clear statement had been made in advance on the question of the importance of international law rather than afterwards.
We are in a difficult situation. It is clear that movement is needed on both sides. The wording of your original proposal was not ideal. I would have preferred you to be in closer contact with Parliament and with the rapporteur. This would perhaps have allowed us to achieve more by working together. Unfortunately that was not the case, but that is not what lies at the heart of this debate. The key issue of the debate is how we can make progress.
We will make progress. This is likely to be the wording which I will propose to Parliament tomorrow. We will say that the mediation that you have proposed – that is how it is and I fully support it – should be based on international law, including the principles of equity. The two sides must agree to move in this direction. Both Croatia and Slovenia must recognise that international law is necessary but, of course, also that the principles of equity, fairness and a just solution – a political solution, if you want to describe it in that way – are essential. Both sides must acknowledge this and it is actually rather sad that we are in a situation where we cannot progress. Given the other problems which there are in the world and, in particular, in Europe, it should be possible to solve these problems by mutual agreement. Despite all the criticism, I do, of course, wish you every success in your efforts to convince both sides. Unfortunately, yesterday’s discussion was not as positive as it should have been, but I hope that will soon change.
I would like to make one more general remark which also applies to Macedonia. There are bilateral problems, but they should not be allowed to block the negotiations on enlargement. As regards our amendment, which is often misunderstood, it is, of course, the case that bilateral problems should not form part of the negotiation framework. They must remain outside the framework. This is all about the negotiations between the European Union and the individual countries. The bilateral problems must be resolved in parallel, if both sides – in this case Macedonia and Greece – are prepared to consider the issues. This Parliament must give a clear signal that both sides in all these disputes must be prepared to move. It is not possible for one side to compromise and the other to remain in the same position. We must make it clear in all these cases that the bilateral problems must not be allowed to block the accession negotiations. They can be resolved in parallel with the negotiations and this Parliament will help to ensure that both sides make a move in the two disputes which we are discussing here. I hope that we will then achieve positive results."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples