Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-06-Speech-3-045"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021106.6.3-045"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioners, following the vote on the Treaty of Nice and, then, the Brussels European Council, there appear not to be any serious obstacles to enlargement. Certainly, there are a few small stones cluttering up the track, but none of them seems capable of derailing the train bound for Copenhagen.
What for a long time seemed to be an ill-fated love affair between East and West became a budding romance almost exactly 13 years ago when the Iron Curtain came down and allowed the relationship to blossom fully. Now, we are just about ready for marriage and, as a liberal, I feel incredible pride at the fact that it is a liberal government that is finally blessing the union between these countries. I want to congratulate the Danish Presidency on what it has achieved so far.
I should like to address three issues, Mr President-in-Office: first of all, Turkey. The resolution we shall vote on tomorrow is quite vague where Turkey is concerned. I think it is important for us to do as you did and clearly and unambiguously encourage the forces of reform in Turkey, as well as welcoming the positive signals coming from the new government in Ankara. There remains a great deal to be done before the Copenhagen criteria have been fulfilled, but I hope that the Copenhagen European Council may mean a qualitative step forwards in relations with Turkey. It is in everyone’s interests that we should have close and continuous relations with Turkey and that we help one another in the fight for increased human rights.
Secondly, the safety clauses. The more I hear about these, the more confusing I think they are. How are they to be applied, and how are they to be interpreted and put into effect? Have they really been properly thought through? What we really need in the EU is a type of inspection system that comprises all the EU countries, old as well as new, in order to ensure that we
comply with the democratic values and criteria on which the EU is based: respect for human rights, non-discrimination, good governance, respect for the state governed by law etc. We know that there are Member States which do not at present fulfil the Copenhagen criteria.
Thirdly and finally, it was good that a settlement was reached concerning agricultural policy, which was one of the biggest obstacles to the timetable for enlargement. In this way, the Presidency showed that the prophets of doom who condemned the Brussels European Council were wrong. The Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party would very much like, however, to have seen a clearer reform agenda with express support for Commissioner Fischler’s proposals and for the commitments we made in Doha. Agricultural policy needs to be substantially reformed.
A fair amount of work remains to be done before the Copenhagen Summit. We must not underestimate the difficulties of this work. The candidate countries must subsequently hold their referendums. I hope that we can all use the run-up to 2004 to engage with people
the continent and explain to them, inform them about and convince them of the importance of unifying Europe, not for our sake but for theirs. It is as Jean Monnet said: ‘It is not states we are uniting, but citizens and people’."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"throughout"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples