President. – The next item is the joint debate on the reports of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy on progress towards accession by the 12 candidate countries, and specifically:

- (A5-0250/22) by Mr Brok on the enlargement of the European Union (COM(1999) 500 - C5-0341/2000 - 2000/2171(COS));

- (A5-0238/2000) by Mrs Carlsson on Estonia (COM(1999) 504 - C5-0027/2000 - 1997/2177(COS));

- (A5-0239/2000) by Mrs Schroedter on Latvia (COM(1999) 506 - C5-0029/2000 - 1997/2176(COS));

- (A5-0240/2000) by Mrs Hoff on Lithuania (COM(1999) 507 - C5-0030/2000 - 1997/2178(COS));

- (A5-0246/2000) by Mr Gawronski on Poland (COM(1999) 509 - C5-0032/2000 - 1997/2184(COS));

- (A5-0245/2000) by Mr Jürgen Schröder on the Czech Republic (COM(1999) 503 - C5-0026/2000 - 1997/2180(COS));

- (A5-0244/2000) by Mr Wiersma on the Slovak Republic (COM(1999) 511 - C5-0034/2000 - 1997/2173(COS));

- (A5-0248/2000) by Mr Queiró on Hungary (COM(1999) 505 - C5-0028/2000 - 1997/2175(COS));

- (A5-0241/2000) by Mr Van Orden on Bulgaria (COM(1999) 501 - C5-0024/2000 - 1997/2179(COS));

- (A5-0247/2000) by Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne on Romania (COM(1999) 510 - C5-0033/2000 - 1997/2172(COS));

- (A5-0242/2000) by Mr Martelli on Slovenia (COM(1999) 512 - C5-0035/2000 - 1997/2181(COS));

- (A5-0249/2000) by Mr Poos on Cyprus (COM(1999) 502 - C5-0025/2000 - 1997/2171(COS));

- (A5-0243/2000) by Mrs Stenzel on Malta (COM(1999) 508 - C5-0031/2000 - 1999/2029(COS)).

  Brok (PPE-DE) , rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, I should like to point out that I see this morning's debate in the context of the European Union's ability to reform. I believe that it has become clear to all of us, following President Prodi's excellent speech, that the European Union's ability to reform and success in Nice are essential prerequisites for the European Union to move forward quickly. In my opinion, even today there are a number of Member States which have still not understood that this link exists, and that the slow progress in the Intergovernmental Conference might make it very difficult for us to bring about enlargement in the necessary time frame. We think that decisions need to be made in Nice on those issues which are necessary for enlargement, even if this means not addressing all those issues which remain to be resolved – and which it is desirable that we resolve – in connection with reforming the European Union.

This report needs to be viewed in a similar light. In this report too, which I am presenting to you, there are a number of points which it is desirable that we in the European Union – but also the accession countries – address, but not all of them are conditions for accession to the European Union, because the conditions for accession to the European Union are clearly set out in the Copenhagen criteria. The European Parliament would nevertheless like to say that accession to the European Union is conditional upon the Copenhagen criteria being satisfied in full.

There must be no political waiver for any country. It must be clear that all of these conditions have to be met. Furthermore, it must also be clear that democracy and the rule of law are in fact the condition for negotiating and that other conditions simply have to be satisfied in the course of the negotiations, and here we do of course realise that – in the interests of the accession applicants as well as in the interests of the European Union – we will have to agree transitional arrangements in a series of sectors, as we have always done with accessions. This does not amount to discrimination against anybody.

I also think, however, that we should make it clear when we talk about the Copenhagen criteria that each individual country has to be assessed on the progress it has made. For this reason we should also make an official break with thinking in terms of groups. It is true that in Luxembourg and then in Helsinki countries were invited to hold bilateral negotiations. But for me the Luxembourg and Helsinki groups no longer exist; instead, each country has the opportunity – in accordance with the catch-up principle – of becoming a Member of the European Union very quickly, if it fulfils the requirements for membership of the European Union. That is why it is also wrong at the present time to mention the names of countries which look today as though they are in a position to fulfil the requirements, because for internal political reasons a country which is in a good position today might fall back again next year, or vice versa. For this reason, it must be clear that full satisfaction of the Copenhagen criteria is the only essential point.

That is why I should like to propose to you that from next year we in Parliament no longer present a general report at all but only country reports, to make it clear that we wish to see the negotiations proceed at differentiated paces. An amendment is proposed by the Socialist Group to make it clear that the European Union will be capable of enlargement at the beginning of 2003. I think that this is a good proposal which should be supported, and an equally good proposal is that from the European People's Party stating that if possible the first countries should be able to participate in the European Parliament elections in 2004.

(Applause)

I believe that if we take these two dates together then we are giving the people there something to aim for. I am convinced that some countries will be in a position to prepare themselves adequately within that time.

When I consider that it is already eleven years since the revolution in central and eastern Europe then we must also give these people the prospect of the process of change bearing fruit at some point. We said: "If you throw off the yoke of dictatorship then Europe's doors also stand open for you." We must also take this seriously and not be forever finding new hurdles and difficulties, or new reasons to delay the unification process.

I think therefore that holding out the prospect of accession to the people is essential, so as to encourage these countries to develop the enduring strength to push through political and economic reforms of the necessary magnitude.

Although we need to discuss and resolve the issues relating to internal reform within the European Union in Nice, we will certainly not be able to avoid discussing Europe's borders either. We are now negotiating with 12 countries. We should also make offers to all the other countries. To make it clear that full membership is not the only possible way of being linked to the European Union at the outset, we also need to offer other kinds of cooperation – comparable to the European Economic Area in the past – covering economic and security policy issues. We should make offers of this kind. A country such as Ukraine cannot become a Member of the European Union today and perhaps not in the future either, but this country is so tremendously important for European development that we need to make sure that there is something on offer for it, as well as for many other countries. What I mean to say is that full membership should not remain the only means available for cooperating with the European Union.

We will only be able to achieve all the objectives which I have mentioned so far if politicians and the elite both in the applicant countries and in the European Union – and in this limited context I agree with you, Commissioner – finally advertise the fact that the enlargement of the European Union is actually of benefit to Europe itself too. The political, economic and security policy stability which the enlargement of the European Union will bring is something which I certainly do not need to mention.

European unity of this kind puts us in a position to create a zone of stability with a foundation so solid that it would have been barely possible at any other time in history, and we see that our aid is creating development opportunities in the accession countries which are enabling us to fund the reform process. On the other hand – and people hardly dare to say this – in recent years our balance of trade surplus with the accession countries has been greater than the public aid which we have granted these countries. We are beneficiaries of the enlargement of the European Union and should not always frighten people by only talking about cost. For once we should try telling the truth!

(Applause)

It is my privilege to be presenting this report on the tenth anniversary of German reunification. This German unity only became possible because trust had been built up through the unification of Europe. But I think that we also need to make it clear that we are now on the verge of seeing the unification of the whole of Europe. Because what we have called the European Union up until now only encompasses a small part of this continent. We have the opportunity to create a new order in which no one loses their identity and whose wealth is derived from the diversity of its people. We will also be able to fashion an order in which war between us becomes impossible, in which people are able to discover each other in their common humanity and in which we can combine our strengths to represent our interests in the world, that is to fight for our common cause as Europeans in the world. I hope that we have the inner strength to forget the trivialities and to achieve the overall objective. I would ask you to support this report.

(Applause)

  Moscovici, Council. – (FR) Mr President, Presidents, Commissioner, rapporteurs, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, let me thank you for organising this debate on enlargement. I have two reasons for welcoming this opportunity. Firstly, because the enlargement of the European Union, as Mr Brok has just said, is not just another priority, not that I need to remind the Members of this House. It is the backcloth and the goal of all the activity of today’s European Union, a political goal that conditions all our work, beginning, of course, with the work of reforming the institutions. I would agree with you in not wishing to separate this morning’s debate from this afternoon’s.

In this respect, I wish to congratulate the European Parliament on the work accomplished in the reform of a report devoted to each of the twelve candidate countries which have entered into negotiations, and an overall report by Mr Brok, which I shall have the opportunity to comment on in further detail in my speech. I feel, then, that on the basis of the work undertaken by previous presidencies and by the Commission, the French Presidency will be in a position, or so I hope, at least, to offer a quite precise overview of the accession process at the European Council in Nice. I therefore propose, in order to make a useful contribution to this debate, to tell you quite specifically what the French Presidency is doing during these six months to achieve the results I have just mentioned.

Our first guideline is that we must, of course, go as far as possible in the accession negotiations in order to draw up a report that is as accurate as possible, in Nice, country by country and chapter by chapter. With this in mind, let me firstly remind you that we plan to organise for each candidate country two negotiation meetings for alternate members and one at ministerial level, split into two phases, on 21 November and 5 December, back-to-back with the meetings of the General Affairs Council. The French Presidency will immediately inform the committee which you chair, Mr Brok, of the result of these negotiations, come Tuesday afternoon, according to the tradition that has developed between us.

As you know, the Helsinki European Council stressed the principle of differentiation between candidate countries, and both the Presidency and I feel the Commission are truly working, hand in hand, on this matter as regards conducting the negotiations. I would like to emphasise in this House the complete convergence of our views with those of Commissioner Verheugen and I must congratulate him on the very high quality of his work at this point.

This means, then, that each candidacy must be assessed and shall be assessed, in short, on its own merits. That is the wording adopted. I shall not, of course, go into the details of each of these negotiations. I shall perhaps leave that to the debate on the twelve reports which is to follow. I do, nonetheless, wish to outline in a few words the extent of the work undertaken along with those who, for ease of reference – though, like you, I thing this must come to an end, but using the terms ‘Luxembourg Six’ and ‘Helsinki Six’ does describe the timing of the events – I shall call the ‘Luxembourg Six’, in inverted commas. With these six countries, all the chapters of the acquis communautaire bar one, the chapter on the institutions, have been opened, though some have been closed temporarily, between 12 and 16 depending on the country, and others are still being negotiated, between 13 and 18 depending on the country. I therefore feel that we are beginning to get a fairly clear picture of the problems that remain in each of these negotiations, both from the point of view of the candidate countries and from that of the European Union itself. I think these can be divided into three categories.

Firstly there is the matter of adopting the acquis. What stage are the candidate countries at? How in practical terms can we assess the commitments they are making as part of the negotiations and their ability to effectively transpose the acquis? That is why, just like the European Parliament, the French Presidency wished to have access to the tracking schedules for monitoring adoption of the acquis, updated regularly, it being understood that the basic principle of the negotiations must continue to be the wholesale adoption of the acquis.

Next there is the matter of the transitional periods. This is obviously related to the previous issue. As you know, the candidates have expressed a number of requests to this effect. This, moreover, is a sign that the accession negotiations have clearly entered a new phase and that henceforth, as the French Presidency wishes, we should go into substantive discussions. In this respect, I should like to point out that the Council has, on the basis of an initial document from the Commission, initiated a consultation process which should enable the European Union to make progress in the negotiations.

Finally, of course, there are the negotiating positions, concerning the most difficult chapters of the acquis, taking particular account of their budgetary implications for the European Union. I am, of course, thinking of the common agricultural policy and the regional development policies. I have said, and I have no problem saying it again here today, that the French Presidency will not duck any of the problems that are raised. This does not, of course, mean that we shall have the time and resources to deal with each of them. As far as we are concerned, however, imparting a new dynamic to these negotiations means, particularly with regard to the issue of transitional periods, we shall do all we possibly can in order to make progress pragmatically.

Next, let me say a few works on the ‘Helsinki Six’, in inverted commas once again, who entered into negotiations at the beginning of this year. By the end of our Presidency, half of the chapters of the acquis will have been opened to negotiation. We in fact expect, in absolute agreement with Commissioner Verheugen, to enter into negotiations on 42 new chapters, i.e. between 4 and 9 according to country, just like the Portuguese Presidency before us. This should enable the best candidates to catch up the members of the Luxembourg group quite quickly and perhaps indeed, as early as next year. We know that this is a wish which some of you have expressed quite clearly in Parliament. Obviously the work carried out by each of the rapporteurs and by the parliamentary committees will serve a useful purpose in providing fuel for our own discussions.

Let me now mention the second guideline along which the Presidency hopes the enlargement process will develop in these six months.

I have just mentioned the very important technical work under way for three years now and I have also said that, with regard to at least some candidate countries, we shall very shortly have a quite precise overview of the remaining problems. We think the time has come to take this work to a more political level by combining all the information available to us. That is why we are organising a substantive ministerial debate, which will take place at the General Affairs Council on 20 November on the basis of the precise documents to be provided by the Commission concerning, in particular, the candidate countries’ adoption of the acquis and the progress that each of them have made. Regarding the basis of this debate, the Presidency will have the necessary elements available to enable the Heads of State and Government in Nice to have a serious discussion regarding the continuation of the enlargement process.

This too is the spirit in which the French Presidency has decided to organise two meetings of the European Conference, bringing together the 15 Member States and the 12 + 1 candidate countries – twelve that have already entered into negotiations and one candidate. One of these meetings will be at ministerial level, on 23 November this year, in Sochaux, and the other will involve the Heads of State and Government in Nice on 7 December. These meetings will be primarily an opportunity to inform the candidate countries of the state of progress in the reform of the institutions, which is of great interest to them as it concerns the European Union that they will be joining but also, of course, to initiate a political discussion with these countries regarding the operation of the enlarged European Union.

It is not, of course, impossible that the candidate countries will seize this opportunity to once again bring up, as you said, Mr President – the subject of the dates for enlargement. This is, of course, a perfectly legitimate question, but it is one that must be answered quite properly and precisely.

I should like to point out that, in a sense, this matter has already been settled, as the Helsinki European Council set the 1 January 2003 as the date when the European Union should be ready to accept the first new members, i.e. the ones that are the best prepared at that time, on condition, of course, that by that time a proper treaty has been signed in Nice and ratified by the national parliaments. This date of 1 January 2003 is by no means a random choice. I see no reason to go back on that decision either way.

Personally, I remain convinced that, in the debate on the date of the first accessions, the European Union must avoid – with very great respect to the European Parliament – trying to make an impact so often. Everyone understands the value of giving the candidate countries a deadline, as an objective and a mobilising factor. The date of 1 January 2003, which is the only one on which the European Union has agreed, is, however, both for the candidates and for ourselves, an extremely ambitious objective and this is the deadline to which the Presidency will be working. Far be it from me and from each of us, I feel, to think that we will have completed all the negotiations in 2001, enabling the results to then be ratified in 2002. This is not the issue and, for a number of candidate countries, as we know, the negotiations will take a few more years yet. It is true, however, that the work which has been undertaken, and which we wish to boost, should make it possible, by the end of the year 2000, both to have a better appreciation of the overall balance in each of the negotiations and also, at least for the most advanced candidate countries, to clearly identify the problems to be resolved as a priority in order to bring these negotiations to a successful conclusion.

What I therefore propose is to work towards this, bearing in mind that, with a view to 2003, we shall have to examine which candidates are ready to join us at that time.

Finally, let me say a brief word on Turkey which, as far as the European Union is concerned, is now clearly part of the enlargement process and is the thirteenth candidate for accession. I am aware, furthermore, that Mr Morillon is currently drawing up a report on this country, and we await this with interest. We cannot but be pleased that, in Helsinki, a number of obstacles with regard to the recognition of this country’s candidacy were overcome. At the same time, we are well aware of the continuing obstacles to this accession, starting with the issues related to respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in this country. Admittedly there has been some progress, but they are still a long way from fulfilling the Copenhagen criteria. Once again, on this point too, in agreement with the Commission, the French Presidency will strive to achieve results in two areas: firstly in the adoption of an accession partnership, which is necessary both for Turkey and for the European Union, and then the implementation of the financial regulation which will enable the European Union to honour the commitments it has made to this country, and that we would like to see adopted by the end of the year.

I share your view, Mr President: the European Union must not have a mean-spirited attitude or a narrow-minded mentality with regard to enlargement. Enlargement is a historic undertaking. Enlargement is a wide-ranging goal which we must approach with a great deal of generosity and with vision. Let us, however, at the same time be aware that the conditions for success must be laid down, both in relation to the candidate countries, in relation to public opinion, and in relation to what we all want, i.e. to maintain sound common policies. Enlargement is our future, on condition that the acquis communautaire and the common policies which we all value highly are not thereby weakened or watered down. That is why we must advance resolutely, declaring ourselves in favour of enlargement while establishing the conditions for it to succeed.

I am quite ready, of course, to follow the very important debate we are all involved in here today.

  Verheugen, Commission. – (DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, honourable members, I welcome the opportunity for an in-depth debate on progress in and prospects for negotiations on the enlargement of the European Union. I should like to thank the rapporteur of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, Mr Brok, for his clear, comprehensive report. My thanks also to all the other rapporteurs. Despite differences of detail, a common basic line is beginning to emerge.

This debate offers a welcome opportunity to consolidate our resolve to enlarge. The development of Europe has entered a phase in which, now more than ever, we need clear objectives and decisive action. Our two major tasks, internal reform and external enlargement, are closely interconnected. Both tasks are indispensable per se but they need to be resolved together if they are to be resolved correctly.

I should therefore like to establish straight away that the cornerstone which will allow the enlargement project to be completed is agreement on the institutional reforms of the EU. Unless they are reformed, our institutions will suffer a heart attack and will no longer be able to fulfil their purpose. A successful outcome to the Intergovernmental Conference in Nice in December will pave the way for more pro-active negotiations.

But success does not depend on the time factor alone, however important it may be.

A specific outcome is needed from the Intergovernmental Conference if we are to do justice to the tremendous pressure for adaptation. An unsatisfactory outcome or even failure in Nice would have fatal consequences in the candidate countries by playing into the hands of the eurosceptic movements in these countries. Populists will stand up and maintain that the EU has finally made it clear that, in truth, it does not want any new members. Action speaks louder than words when it comes to countering such arguments!

The present and largest enlargement round in the history of European unification is a morally-imperative, strategically-needed and politically-feasible move. This project has already made considerable progress and there is no turning back. There is no single case in the negotiations in which it is a question of “if”; it is only a question of “how” and “when”. Enlargement is the only answer to the two main historical changes which we have witnessed in our lifetime.

It is perhaps a coincidence, and if so it is a happy coincidence, that this debate is being held on the 10th anniversary of the completion of German reunification. German reunification should also be seen as a part of and as a precursor to the wider objective of European enlargement; the events and developments which made German reunification possible also made it possible for us even to sit here today in this House and contemplate the admission of ten central and eastern European countries as members of the European Union.

That is the reason why enlargement is the right response to the end of the Cold War and the break up of the Communist bloc. How are we supposed to explain to the people of Europe who only gained their freedom and self-determination in the last decade that the advantages of European integration are only available to those who happened to be on the “right” side of the iron curtain after 1945.

(Applause)

We will not permit any new division of Europe. We do not want to replace ideological demarcation lines in the form of insurmountable frontiers with a new demarcation line, a demarcation line separating the haves from the have-nots in Europe. But that is not all that is at stake. We want to extend peace and stability to the whole of Europe. But not just any old stability. The Soviet empire gave the impression of being stable both to the outside world and internally for decades, but this stability had long been rotten and crumbling, precisely because it was not based on democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the protection of minorities.

It is no coincidence; on the contrary, it is virtually a cast-iron rule that we only have peace and stability in Europe where these values have been put into practice and where Europe is already unified or is in the process of unifying. Peace and stability in Europe are the basis for a happy future for all the people of Europe. And if they do not apply throughout Europe, then they are in jeopardy throughout Europe.

The second major change which we are witnessing and to which Europe must adjust is the meteoric speed at which the economy is moving towards a global market and global competition. This change offers us huge opportunities and the more we pool our strengths and interests, the better use we can make of them. An even bigger common market will make us stronger. Extending the euro zone will strengthen the euro. A larger community will have more weight when it comes to mastering global tasks.

The enlargement of the European Union is not a post-dated cheque which has yet to prove that it can be cashed. The advantages are already there; they are visible and everyone stands to gain. I am firmly convinced that, without the prospect of European integration, the systems of central and eastern Europe would not have been changed as quickly or as successfully.

When we see that the countries in the enlargement process have already stabilised their democratic systems in a short space of time, then that is their achievement. They alone have taken the courageous decision to shake off bureaucracy and a planned economy and create open societies, modern democracies and workable market economies. But they have also done so because the prospect of membership of the European Union gives them hope of solidarity with the people of Europe and because they are being offered a firm political and economic foothold.

The advantages of political change can already be accurately anticipated from economic developments. The candidate countries of central and eastern Europe used to be on the fringe of the world economy. In the meantime, their foreign trade with the EU has risen to between 50 and 70%. We are achieving high foreign trade surpluses with all these countries. That translates into higher tax revenues, higher national insurance contributions and, most importantly, more jobs.

The forecasts for growth in the area as a whole are extremely auspicious. Growth is expected to be well above the current EU average over the next ten years. These fast developing new markets create new supply and new demand; it is an all win situation for both sides right from the start. I do not think there is any particular need to stress at this point that these promising economic prospects are based solely on quantifiable and political stable framework conditions.

The prospect of enlargement has resolved centuries-old conflicts, settled border problems and defused minority issues.

These achievements deserve a positive response. I am certain that we all agree that these people, who have gone to so much trouble, should not be disappointed. I am therefore delighted to be able to tell you that the both the quality and speed of the enlargement process improved during the first year of the new Commission. The process has already acquired a momentum of its own and is now unstoppable.

Allow me to recapitulate the principles which guide us and which are non-negotiable.

First: we are preparing the new members for full membership with equal rights. Enlargement will not create an à la carte Europe or second-class citizens within the Union. New members must comply with all the conditions of accession. There will be no political discounts.

Secondly: each country stands on its own merits in the enlargement process. No geographical or political groups are being formed. The terms Luxembourg group or Helsinki group are merely technical terms in order to differentiate between the countries invited to enter into negotiations in Luxembourg in 1997 and those which did not join until Helsinki in 1999. But that does not alter the fact that each country will only be ready for accession when it has made the necessary progress.

Thirdly: we are abiding by the principle of differentiated negotiations. Chapters are opened and closed depending on the current state of preparations and actual progress in negotiations.

Fourthly: this results in another principle whereby the countries which joined later have a fair chance of catching up with those that began earlier. I wish there to be no doubt about the fact that we cannot help them catch up by slowing down negotiations with those who are already further ahead. We can help countries catch up, but not by putting their neighbours on hold.

The Commission will be presenting its progress report for the year 2000 and a new strategy paper on 8 November. Work is still under way. The reports for previous years set high standards which we want to maintain. These are reports, not report cards, and I too shall avoid any form of ranking of candidates in the future.

The reports are intended to help candidate countries continue with the necessary reforms and rectify persistent shortcomings. They are also intended to help the EU institutions monitor their success and to act as a basis on which negotiating strategies can be further developed.

Without wishing to anticipate the results, I can report on some of the trends in the new reports today. There has been progress on a wide front in securing the political criteria. I cannot see a risk of any one country descending into authoritarian structures. Neighbourly relations are developing well and quickly. Democratic basic values and rules are securely anchored. We shall, of course, continue to monitor potential risks and unresolved questions, which is why we are keeping a careful eye on the situation of national minorities and why we are working on concrete measures to overcome social discrimination, especially against the Roma people, in a whole series of countries.

As far as the economic criteria are concerned, there has been clear progress here also. Nearly all the countries now qualify as market economies, even if the process of economic reform has not yet been fully completed. But that does not only apply to the candidate countries.

A number of countries have made such good progress with the second economic criterion of their ability to compete in the single market that they are fast reaching the point at which they are ready for accession.

As far as the third set of criteria is concerned, i.e. the ability to adopt and apply the whole acquis communautaire, a great deal still needs to be done. I am not criticising the fact that the public administration is often very weak and that the legal system does not yet offer the degree of legal security which we require in the Community. Obviously, changes in this area take longer than elsewhere. The work of creating institutions and structures is not yet finished. Above all, we need the right people. They need to be found, trained and, most importantly, the money must be there to pay them.

High priority is already being given to these questions in the pre-accession strategy and we shall step this up. We need to be sure that the acquis communautaire is fully applied in practice, not just on paper.

I should like to mention a problem in this respect which requires particular attention and is a matter of great concern to me. I refer to the widespread corruption in a not insignificant number of countries. Of course, I am aware of the specific social and economic causes of corruption. But there is also corruption in places in which there is no ready explanation in the form of pitiful levels of income. I do not hold with corruption as a sort of folkloric factor or as part of the cultural heritage. In modern societies and modern economies, corruption is a cancerous sore. The disease grows and spreads to what is still healthy tissue.

Weak administrative structures, a lack of legal security and corruption are also negative location factors which deter foreign investors and hamper fast economic development. Obviously, the huge economic gulf between the Member States of the European Union and the candidate countries can only be closed if there is a constant flow of direct foreign investment to the candidate countries.

The pace of the negotiating process itself increased considerably again last year. I should like to clear up a misunderstanding which sometimes creeps in when we talk of the pace of negotiations. The pace of negotiations cannot simply be extrapolated from the number of chapters dealt with. The content of the chapters in question is also a deciding factor. All outstanding chapters, with the exception of institutions and miscellaneous were opened with the countries in the Luxembourg group during the Portuguese Presidency: a total of 174. At least 84 chapters will have been opened with the countries in the Helsinki group by the end of the French Presidency, i.e. nearly half. I reckon that all outstanding chapters will also be opened with at least four countries in this group next year.

We are now entering a new phase. Our intention now, during the French Presidency, is to start with negotiations in the stricter sense of the word, by which I mean decisions on applications, transitional periods and derogations. On 8 November, the Commission will present more detailed thoughts on the principles which should inform how we deal with derogations and how the corresponding decision-making process should be organised.

I should like today to mention two sets of problems. Transitional periods, which affect how the internal market functions, and problems relating to comprehensive investment programmes. As far as the internal market is concerned, we must ensure that transitional periods are kept to a minimum in terms of both time and content. Where major, long-term investments are needed in order to attain EU standards, we must bear in mind that even the present members claimed long transitional periods in such cases.

As regards the current situation in the monetary union, I should like to remind the House that monetary union forms part of the Treaty and, hence, part of the negotiations. All the candidate countries are keen to accede to monetary union and accession to monetary union is governed by special terms in the Maastricht Treaty. In other words, membership of the EU does not automatically lead to membership of the euro zone; on the contrary, the special criteria must be met. In any event, membership of the exchange rate mechanism comes first and requires a separate decision.

It will not be long before we step up negotiations; as a result, we shall be concentrating on the outstanding – in some cases very complicated – issues: agriculture, the environment, regional policy, internal and legal policy and the budget, to name but a few. In preparation for this, the Commission is working on a new monitoring system which will allow us to assess the state of progress in negotiations and actual implementation in each country accurately at any given time.

I should also like to say a few words on a subject which is very close to my heart: how best to sell the project "Enlargement in the societies of the Member States and candidate countries" to the public. That we have a communications problem can hardly be doubted, even if surveys do not convey a very accurate picture. The Commission has suggested a communication initiative in order to improve this situation. The legal and financial conditions for it are in place and we are in the process of deciding on the exact content. This initiative will basically be decentralised; i.e. it will be implemented in the Member States and in the candidate countries on the basis of their specific needs and circumstances. We are therefore looking to coordinate as closely as possible with the programmes of national governments, Parliament and other institutions.

Because of limited financial resources, we are being forced to develop concepts addressed directly at opinion formers and multipliers. Buying media space is hardly an option. We must therefore count mainly on the involvement of all types of social groups and on the commitment of individuals. That instantly implies that the whole process needs to be democratised.

Any communications strategy which fails to address what really moves people is doomed to failure. We must therefore identify what people associate with enlargement, what hopes and expectations and what concerns and dangers. Propaganda of any sort will not get us anywhere. We need political answers to political questions and we need to get them across properly.

What sort of questions do I mean? Will there be waves of immigrants and what impact will this have on job markets? How will the competitive status quo between current and new Member States in border regions change? Will there be environmental and social dumping? What are the implications of open borders for the fight against crime and, finally, how will we pay for it all?

We have good answers for all these questions. Enlargement will reduce the number of immigrants. Problems which may arise in the early years can be controlled using intelligently-configured transitional periods. We must help border regions to make use of the new opportunities and meet the new challenges. The Commission is already working on the relevant proposals.

There will be no environmental or social dumping because the new members will have to adopt our standards. Enlargement is good for the environment. Enlargement is also good for the level of social security in Europe.

Border security and the fight against crime will also be governed by our standards and will benefit from European cooperation. Here too things will become better, not worse, as the result of enlargement.

The costs of enlargement are set out in the current financial perspectives and will be reflected in the budget. No more can or will be disbursed than is allocated in the budget.

Allow me to summarise the message to the citizens of Europe. Enlargement represents our only chance to change the course of European history and to secure peace, maintain stability and open up huge, new, once-in-a-lifetime opportunities for all the people of Europe. Enlargement is not a magical mystery tour. It will be prepared as thoroughly as is humanly possible. We would be embarking on a magical mystery tour if we were to abandon the project or postpone it indefinitely. We have a window of opportunity. It is open now. It will not stay open for ever. There are risks. No-one can avoid that. But that should not weaken our resolve. It would far riskier if we failed to do what needs to be done.

(Applause)

  Van Velzen (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today we are debating Mr Brok’s report on the progress made on the European Union’s enlargement process, an annually recurring theme. Based on sound analyses carried out by the European Commission, we measure the progress the candidate countries have made with regard to the preparations for the accession process. Every year – and this is shortly to happen again, on 8 November – each candidate country awaits with bated breath the judgement of the Commission with regard to the progress made. This process also bears the hallmarks of a technocratic process, where the political aspects can quite easily be overlooked in amongst the abundance of detail and criteria from the European Commission report. But as has been said, the discussion with the Commission today is business as usual.

Today is also a very special day, because we are celebrating the tenth anniversary of Germany’s reunification. It is an important time to look back on a very special era in our history. As a Dutch person, born in a family which suffered badly from the effects of the Second World War, I am genuinely pleased that I can express my delight here today at Germany’s reunification. Helmut Kohl, together with the German parliament and German politicians, have made every effort to anchor Germany in the European Union, so that earlier fears expressed by neighbouring countries with regard to a reunited Germany having too much power, have fortunately proved unfounded.

Let us not forget that it was civil movements in Central and Eastern Europe which brought about the fall of the Berlin Wall – I would particularly like to mention the Polish trade union Solidarnosc. The wish of the people to end the artificial division of Europe should remain a source of inspiration to us all in the enlargement process.

Let us also recognise the huge progress we have made. Imagine how we would struggle to resolve the issue of Kosovo, Bosnia Herzegovina or our relations with Serbia in a state of cold war. Let us examine the trade flows between the European Union and the Central and Eastern European countries. Approximately 70% of exports from these countries goes to the European Union. The picture was quite different ten years ago!

A large number of Central and Eastern European countries now have much higher economic growth rates than the European Union itself, although these countries have experienced extreme lows and people have also paid the price. The Commission report is right in pointing out that all candidate countries have experienced major reform – and must do so in future.

Let us therefore testify to the enormous efforts that these countries in Central and Eastern Europe have made. Nowhere in the world was there a manual to be found instructing us how such a process of change should come about. We have learnt a great deal from this exercise. Mistakes have been made and reform has not always been as forthcoming. I wonder whether we could have done a better job. I would like to extend heartfelt congratulations to Mr Brok and the rapporteurs who have contributed to this report.

An essential part of the report is Paragraph 25 and the amendment which my group tabled in relation to it. My group has already said this morning that we want to tighten up the wording of Paragraph 25. The reason for this is that we have noticed that Central and Eastern European countries have made enormous efforts. We have also noticed that time and again EU representatives have raised the expectations – even up to parliament level of these candidate countries – as to when they can join the European Union. We were right in opting for the principle of differentiation, whereby each candidate country is assessed on its own merits. But at the same time we have set a process in motion whereby there is no longer any communication about when something will take place and this has removed any commitment to making an effort. This has a demotivating effect on public opinion in those countries. We are constantly saying that a great deal needs to be done at the IGC in Nice, that our own people have certain fears and that lengthy negotiations are still needed.

Mr President, imagine you lived in a country such as this and you heard all of this and you were aware of all the efforts made. Would you feel at home? Would you not then expect us to make an effort so that those countries can join the European Union at the earliest opportunity? This is the message which the PPE-DE Group would like to put across. A commitment which emphatically stipulates that the European Union will be ready by 2003. We expect the first candidate countries to join before 2004 so that they can take part in the 2004 elections and they can participate as fully-fledged members in the new IGC round on the European constitution, for example.

We would like other countries to join in the session after 2004 and negotiations with the candidate states in question to be completed more quickly. I would also like to call on the EU Member States to accelerate the ratification processes so as to shorten the whole procedure. And finally, I would welcome a debate on transitional periods in the European Union. I was pleased that Commissioner Verheugen raised this issue, because it can once again be interpreted as a new obstacle. We should start with a debate involving our own people. I was pleased that the Commissioner at long last started to dispel the aforementioned fears of the people. But this is where we need to make the effort. The hallmark of German reunification was that there were politicians who understood the Zeitgeist, who dared to act. Let this be a guiding example to us during the next two to three years.

(Applause)

  Hänsch (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Brok's report is an excellent description of the European Parliament's position. My group will give it its unanimous support. This debate is a further opportunity for my group to reaffirm its view that the accession of the central and eastern European countries, but also of Cyprus and Malta, is the best way of safeguarding the future for all of us in Europe both in the East and in the West. The sooner we achieve this, the better it will be for all of us.

You will realise that we do not only agree with Mr Brok's report, but that I also agree with much of what he said here and, incidentally, also with what Mr van Velzen said. This is no accident, because it shows that the large groups in this House and the vast majority of this House are acting in concert where this issue of the future of the European Union is concerned, and that we all agree that we want the same thing.

We acknowledge the huge efforts which the central and eastern European countries are making to be ready for accession. We welcome the progress which they have made in the past months and years. We know that there are large disparities. But these disparities are also related to the different starting points at which they began the process of converging with the European Union.

We know that the central and eastern European countries will not be able to meet all of the EU's standards by the day of accession. Transitional periods will therefore have to be agreed. Different sectors will require different transitional periods. This is in their interests, but also in ours.

We insist – incidentally as Commissioner Verheugen also did – that these transitional periods be kept as short as possible. Transitional periods are possible and necessary, for example for the free movement of capital, for the free movement of workers, for meeting certain environmental standards which require major investment and for a series of other points.

We will be able to support all of this and we also want to support it. But one point is clear – and I welcome the fact that Mr Verheugen has underlined this once more: there can be no transitional period for complying with democratic rules. Neither can there be a transitional period for securing the external borders if we want to have open borders within the European Union.

Any country joining the EU must also want to join the monetary union. There can and must be no opting out. I am saying this expressly with last week's Danish referendum in mind. But neither must there be any waiver from meeting the Maastricht criteria. Only those which meet the criteria – as they have stood up until now – can introduce the euro; this also applies to all of the current Member States which are introducing the euro. There must be no waivers there either.

My group would also like to emphasise one further point: the future Member States have undertaken to decommission first-generation nuclear power stations of Soviet design. This undertaking – which they themselves entered into – must be carried out, and this by accession to the European Union.

The progress and efforts being made in central and eastern Europe give us hope that the first accession treaties will still be able to be ratified in the European Parliament in this parliamentary term.

I am convinced that we can manage this and also that we should manage it. It does presuppose, however, that the European Union will keep its own promise to be ready for enlargement from 1 January 2003. Nice must deliver a substantial reform of the institutions of the European Union. Like everyone else here, I am very grateful that the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, but also the President-in-Office, Mr Moscovici, made it clear this morning that it is substantial reforms that we are talking about and not simply tweaking the rules of one or other institution.

Nevertheless, we also know that in Nice the maximum achievable will be less than the minimum necessary. This means we know that the reforms will continue and must continue after Nice. But we do not want additional hurdles to accession to be set up either in Nice or afterwards. This means that if we want further reform then the structure of the enlarged Union will only be found in the enlarged Union and by the enlarged Union.

Being ready for enlargement is not only about reforming the institutions of the European Union but also about the support of its people. And we all know that they have fears, worries, hesitations and questions: what will enlargement cost? Yes, it is true that enlargement is not free; it does not come free of charge. Yes, it is true: after 2006 it will be necessary to reform the Structural Funds and the support available under the Structural Funds. But it is also true that in the financial perspective up to 2006 EUR 68 billion is provided for; no less, but no more either. I am very grateful that Commissioner Verheugen has made this very clear once more. But if we say this, then surely we must also say that in 1999 the EU achieved an export surplus of EUR 19 billion in trade with the accession countries, and up to 2006 – for the duration of the financial perspective – that makes EUR 90 billion, and that compared with the costs of EUR 68 billion which we have committed for our part in the financial perspective. With this EUR 90 billion the eastern Europeans, not us, are funding tens of thousands of jobs in the European Union. This too is part of the debate on enlargement.

(Applause)

So, let us not always only talk about the costs of enlargement; let us also talk about the costs of non-enlargement. And that is why we call on the Commission to table a study, a kind of Cecchini report, on what non-enlargement would cost. This too would be a useful and important input into the public debate.

Enlargement is not purely a cost-benefit issue. It was the Polish trade union movement Solidarnosc; it was the Hungarian Government which opened the Hungarian borders; it was the Czechoslovak Government which opened up its country. All of them have made the reunification of Europe possible. And today, on the German national holiday, I say it with particular emotion: they also made the reunification of my country possible. And that is why we have the moral and historic duty to make a success of the accession of the peoples of central and eastern Europe to the European Union. I am sure that we will manage it, because we must!

(Applause)

  Cox (ELDR). – Mr President, President-in-Office, Commissioner, I am extremely pleased both with the tone of this debate today and with the level of consensus that is emerging among the key groups in the House, a consensus which my Group subscribes to.

The challenge of reunification, even more perhaps than that of enlargement is so great that it suffuses and surrounds every debate in this House: this is why there is such depth and intensity to all our debates, including this morning's debate on our own need to prepare for this extraordinary challenge. To create a common space of freedom, security and of values by free choice is something without a parallel among democracies in all of our history. It is a matter of the utmost importance and yet has curiously attracted very little public attention. When we look at Eurobarometer statistics, we see that 60% or so of those who expressed a view say enlargement is not a priority, while only 27% say it is a priority. Moreover, the statistics are getting worse, not better.

In the largest state of the Union, the Federal Republic of Germany, only 20% say enlargement is a priority. We as politicians must take possession of this debate and not simply leave it to the bureaucracies, for though it is indispensable to discuss the details of the acquis, this is not sufficient to engage the public.

We need a dialogue of politicians and therefore we need to avail ourselves of all the information possibilities that Commissioner Verheugen spoke of in his very reflective and elegant speech today. We need, as Mr Hänsch has said, to provide ourselves with information about the cost of non-enlargement, not simply in terms of finance and budget, but of security as well as, of course, socio-economic measures.

It was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the American President, who once said that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. Much of our debate about fears about enlargement is based on exaggeration, but in order to confront the populists who exaggerate, we must connect with popular politics through reflection. We need the Commission's help here, because even though we have the will, we sometimes lack the ammunition.

In respect of the principles involved, we of course support differentiation; of course, we support the principle of equality that there should not be a Europe of different classes of citizenship. My Group has 23 visiting MPs, our "virtual MEPs", sitting in the gallery now: I welcome all of you to this debate in the House.

Finally, the critical thing now is to move to substantive negotiation, and we are making that important step. The critical thing is not to allow frustration to grow among the candidates – that they are always in the anteroom but never quite in the chamber. That is what we must accomplish in this debate, that is the result we must pursue. People joke that after the collapse of the Berlin Wall enlargement is always just five years away. We must show they are wrong. Let us take the first step in that direction during this mandate.

  Hautala (Verts/ALE). – (FI) Mr President, the purpose of today’s discussions, in the opinion of my group, must be that we restore faith in the idea that we are in earnest when it comes to enlargement. It is true that in talks with the countries involved in the first stage, which have lasted two years, we have not yet got around to dealing with the most difficult issues and we have not yet seriously managed to discuss agricultural policy, Structural Funds or issues of freedom of movement. Our job here today is to speed up the process whereby we can begin to discuss these issues. The process has to some extent lost credibility as a result of this sort of hesitancy and groping around in the dark.

If we look at what is happening in our own Member States, we might say that quite often the remark is reiterated that, in fact, accession on the part of the new countries will only be by their own efforts. This should not be, however. We really must demand of ourselves, and the European Union too, significant changes as far as the Union is concerned.

If we look at what is happening in the applicant countries we notice that they are not just awaiting membership enthusiastically. Let me mention Estonia, as an example. Estonia is a small country, which belonged to a sort of union. There they are very careful to point out they are unwilling to rejoin any sort of bureaucratic union. We also have to take this criticism seriously.

Our group requires target dates to be set at the Nice summit or immediately afterwards, by which negotiations on membership should be concluded. This is vital for us, the European Union, in order for us to be able to set targets for ourselves with regard to completing our own internal reforms. Commissioner Verheugen mentioned corruption, but I would like to mention the fact that we cannot infect future Member States with bad administrative practice either. We must also take our own administrative reforms very seriously if we also wish to root out corruption in future Member States, as transparency and good administration are the best guarantee that there is no corruption.

Secondly the target dates are necessary because we must boost the efforts of the applicant countries in their quest for membership. Our group believes that it is quite possible, if we are so determined, to include the first group of applicant countries already in the next European parliamentary elections, if there is determination on both sides to do so. Each country must obviously be appraised on its own merits individually. The next natural opportunity would be the European parliamentary elections that follow in 2009, but we would like to push for as many countries as possible joining in 2004.

We support the Commission in its quest for a realistic, serious and honest debate on the political questions of enlargement. Commissioner Verheugen, you may rely on the support of our group when you say you want to find real political answers to real political questions. It is gratifying to hear your policy in this matter.

Finally, I would like to speak about financing. Our group does not entirely believe that the present level of financing agreed in the financial framework is sufficient, and so we are prepared to discuss any amendment to the financial perspectives. One quite simple way to proceed would be – as funds have been set aside anyway for five new Member States after 2002, if they happen to join the Union – to use these funds in future for this support preceding membership. Above all we need commitment and that is what the European Parliament, for its part, must demonstrate in this debate and when taking decisions.

  Marset Campos (GUE/NGL). – (ES) Mr President, our Group, the European United Left/Nordic Green Left, shares many of the considerations and opinions on enlargement contained in Mr Brok’s report and we appreciate the enormous effort he has put into his courageous report. However, we disagree on some important issues. Our support for enlargement goes without saying. We are also in favour of a European Union that includes Russia, and which therefore includes all the countries which have built – albeit in conflicting ways – this historical, cultural, economic, social and political reality known as Europe. The only condition would be – in our view – that they share our democratic values and respect for human rights and the rule of law.

Our disagreements with a portion of Mr Brok’s report range from points of detail to others of greater importance. We do not agree with Recital A where it says that Europe was divided by the Soviet occupation because, as everybody knows and as any history book will tell you, the division was a consequence of the Yalta Conference and the intransigence of Truman who was determined to follow a policy of confrontation.

Furthermore, there are six basic aspects which worry us because of the method employed.

Firstly, we are against the ‘regatta principle’, which seems more like an entrance examination which every teacher puts their pupil through when it would have been better for the pupil to sit the exam in stages and to a previously established timetable, which would have aided the rapprochement of the two societies, thereby preventing the adverse consequences we are now seeing.

Secondly, given the reality that the neo-liberal economic model established in Maastricht leads to the paradox of growth with more inequalities, the most likely outcome of the incorporation of these countries is greater unemployment and inequality, as is already happening. We should change our economic model in advance so that the cost of enlargement is not even more serious social inequality.

Thirdly, the great differences between European agriculture and that of the majority of the candidate countries mean that the current common agricultural policy should have been improved in order to ensure both the viability of our agriculture and the successful completion of the agricultural reforms in those countries. Nevertheless, everything is moving in the opposite direction owing, amongst other things, to the World Trade Organisation, which complicates everything.

Fourthly, and in relation to the use of FEDER funds, we believe that there should be more effort to show solidarity, and that is not happening, and the forecasts therefore seem to us be insufficient.

Fifthly, we also feel that the budgetary forecasts are not sufficient, since this is the first time that a major enlargement is taking place with a budgetary reduction and we only have to look at what happened in the case of the reunification of Germany to see that, in fact, a greater economic contribution is needed in order for this process to be successful.

Sixthly, we believe it has been a mistake to link enlargement in practice with the prior integration of these countries into NATO. This damages the Union, its future independence in relation to the United States and also a common European defence and security policy, since it also introduces risks with regard to Russia and other countries. We are therefore in favour of some aspects but not of others.

  Coûteaux (UEN). – (FR) We shall not be voting in favour of the Brok report, but certainly not because we are opposed to the idea of enlargement, which is, quite obviously, a historical inevitability, just as it is a geographical inevitability. Even the very name ‘Europe’, by definition, includes all the nations from the Atlantic to the Urals, although this has apparently been forgotten by a tiny part of the continent, the most prosperous and, in many ways, the most arrogant part, which appropriated the name half a century ago.

Our opposition to the Brok report is not an indication of ostracism of our partners in Eastern and Central Europe, or southern Europe, quite the contrary, it means that this report sets conditions which are absolutely intolerable, with regard to countries which have been European for centuries and of which we should not be making any other demand whatsoever except, perhaps, for the one condition that political pluralism be respected.

We can understand there being political conditions, given a political undertaking such as European cooperation. We cannot, however, accept economic and social conditions especially as they are so stringent that they are continually pushing back the deadlines and consigning the States to upheavals that are ruinous for their economic and social structure, to the sole advantage, perhaps, of the German patron, who alone may be profiting from the current lack of organisation in Central Europe.

To take just one example, the example of Poland, which moreover is particularly dear to us, it is, unfortunately, only too obvious that opening up frontiers too suddenly is likely to cause its agricultural structures to be ruined very quickly. One quarter of the jobs in Poland are provided by this sector. Last year the rural population increased by 5% in relation to the previous year, and if we wish to bring it in line with our model, then we are simply going to well and truly kill off what is still one of the best assets this country has, not to mention the social problems we shall be inflicting on a very large part of the population.

On all these subjects, the Brok report confines itself to discussing adaptation and reform. In the final analysis, however, there are two possibilities, either we dictate a forced march rate of change and we disrupt most of the candidate countries, or we wait until the conditions set are fulfilled thanks to natural development, and that means postponing accession until the Greek calends.

In actual fact, the thing we are rushing into is the very model of the construction of Europe, by which I mean to say the simultaneous integration of all sectors of activity whatever the traditions or special characteristics of the individual sectors, which once again has turned into a trap. Because we wished to do away with borders in just a few years, because we chose to disregard the differences between nations and their respective systems, we have arrived, once more, at a sort of all or nothing, a choice between two equally dreadful evils.

Obviously, we should have chosen a political Europe, designed as a body for ongoing dialogue accompanied by a few à la carte cooperative agreements, as the programmes Eureka attempted previously. This would have been the option of a confederal Europe, which would have respected the frontiers of all parties, respected each nation’s rate and manner of development, and finally would have respected Europe as a whole. As far as the issue we are discussing today is concerned, this would have enabled us to welcome new countries as and when they applied to be candidates, as in NATO, moreover, for let us not delude ourselves, ladies and gentlemen, as far as we are concerned, the political battle is lost to the United States, who, by using the flexible method of political and military alliance, long ago ensured the enlargement of Europe, but to their advantage.

It will be a long time before the matter of enlargement is settled, since it depends on our being able to backtrack on the ideological, and indeed rather puerile, concept of uniform integration, not to say the melding of all our nations into a compact whole that runs contrary to geographical and historical realities.

That just shows you how pessimistic we are, for our part, so great is the blindness of the European institutions careering headlong along the most pernicious routes, and so great the blindness of the European Parliament which is incapable of issuing an opinion on the burning issues of the day, such as, for example, the unrest in Palestine, where a supposedly democratic State is murdering children in the streets on a daily basis. Instead, this Parliament is losing itself in wearying fancies at the expense of perpetual division.

  Dell'Alba (TDI). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Parliament has done well to insert Mr Brok’s excellent report immediately after this morning’s debate on the Biarritz and Nice Summits. There is no point in pretending: this whole scenario described in such detail by Mr Brok and analysed point by point in the specific reports which we are going to hear conflicts with events in the field of negotiations, which are intended to ensure that the current European Union adapts its structures and institutions in preparation for the challenge of enlargement. In company with a large number of other Members, I greatly appreciated President Prodi’s declarations and I took note of Mr Moscovici’s words when, with diplomatic caution, he too warned us not to expect much in the way of results over the next two or three months. We hope that results will be achieved and that another Intergovernmental Conference will not have to be held in order to prepare adequately for enlargement. However, this factor indisputably pervades and conditions the whole of the rest of the architecture, all the prospects for the future, this acquired right which the peoples and countries of Eastern and southern Europe now have to join the European Union. For the countries of Eastern Europe, I would say that it takes the form of a sort of compensation for all the years that they had to suffer a dictatorship, which, despite being established in Yalta, was still a dictatorship for very many years.

I would now like to emphasise another point: I feel that a major factor is own resources, as has already been stated. The Brok report hints at this, although rather diffidently. However, it also notes the fact that we have a ceiling of 1.27%. We are well below this figure and the governments of our countries are reluctant to even approach it. Now, in the previous enlargement processes, particularly when Spain and Portugal joined the Union, we were in possession of a very powerful budgetary tool, for the Delors I and Delors II packages provided an impetus which made it possible for struggling economies to make up for lost time. This political will is currently absent, and I feel that that is the central factor to be stressed in the debate on enlargement.

  Belder (EDD). – (NL) Mr President, there is no doubt that the EU’s top priority at the dawn of the 21st century is the major historic project of its eastward and partly southward enlargement. This debate aims to underline this. Unmistakably, the personal commitment of the rapporteurs of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy and the productive exchange of ideas in those circles, point in the same direction.

The key year for this undreamt-of opportunity of close political cooperation within the Ancient Occident is the 20the century’s miracle year of 1989. As a former journalist, I hold special memories of that year. The words “We are back in Europe” resounded on the streets of East Berlin, Prague and Bucharest. The way in which this almost universal feeling found expression in Central and Eastern Europe in the late 80s still merits our gratitude to this day.

Ten years have now passed since the fall of the wall and the dismantling of the Iron Curtain. The enthusiasm for Europe in the East has made way for fairly harsh criticism. The reason is clear. The road to the European Union, towards accession, is too long for the candidates. Marek Belka, economic advisor to the Polish President expressed this growing impatience and displeasure in very direct terms, when he said that the European Union expects them to implement the necessary reform measures at break-neck speed, yet fails to give them a target date for accession to work towards. His sentiments have been echoed by the President of the Hungarian national bank, who claims that the European Union must give off the right signals. Otherwise, Eastern Europe’s suspicion that Europe does not really take the issue of enlargement seriously might well end in a dangerous disappointment with regard to the Brussels pledges – according to my Hungarian spokesperson.

How can we do away with these Eastern European reservations about the European Union? I propose we do this by adopting a dynamic twin-track policy. The EU should make the necessary institutional preparations at the earliest opportunity in readiness for a good number of new Member States, and present these countries at long last with a realistic accession strategy. As for this strategy, I have in mind a phased enlargement in relatively small rounds of genuinely suitable candidates, spread out over a period of fifteen years or so. In this way, the European Union would run less risk of pre-empting the Copenhagen criteria than would be the case if no fewer than ten candidate countries were to join simultaneously – an idea which has already been floated. Would this automatically remove in one fell swoop the considerable concerns which the EU Member States and the candidate countries have with regard to the enlargement process? Of course not. This is why I particularly like Amendment No 40 tabled by Mrs Malmström to the Brok report. She is asking the European Commission to carry out a major study into the cost of non-enlargement, plus to indicate what the economic gains and losses would be in the long term if enlargement were to be turned down. In addition, Mrs Malmström is urging the European Commission to give the European citizens plenty of information, because they need to be kept informed at all times of the current enlargement process, which has the overarching goal of Europe’s reunification.

Such a vulnerable position, or rather, such political accountability would certainly do Brussels credit. It would also be an example worthy of imitation for the negotiating partners of the European Union in the East. Then the course of enlargement would truly run smooth, with public opinion forming its crucial social basis.

On a final note, Mr President, the gains and losses of the EU’s eastward enlargement should not be deciding factors. If we are going to value the postponed enlargement, the postponed liberation of the other part of our continent properly, and if we wish to draw lessons from both world wars in the previous century, then we will have to roll up our sleeves and start helping, and be prepared to make sacrifices.

  President. – Ladies and gentlemen, the Council and the Commission have asked for the floor once again. I allowed the groups’ spokespersons to speak for longer than planned, without paying too much attention to the speaking time, due to the importance of the debate. I would therefore ask the Minister and the Commissioner to take account of this and adjust their speaking times accordingly.

  Moscovici, Council. – (FR) I shall be brief, as indeed I was earlier, since my first speech was three minutes under the allotted speaking time.

I should like, in turn, to stress the concomitance between our debate here, which is indeed a fundamental debate, and the tenth anniversary of German reunification, as both subjects are obviously related. It was the fall of the Berlin Wall, this fantastic historic event, which created the conditions for enlargement and for European reunification and which, once again, gives perspective and meaning to this task which will go down in the history of our continent. I should like to congratulate Günther Verheugen on his excellent presentation, which was, as ever, clear, precise and clearly highlighted the key points and the problems to be overcome.

Enlargement, as I have just said, is a historic process, a duty. It is henceforth inevitable, and we should not allow new divides to appear in today’s Europe, ten years after the fall of the Berlin Wall. To make matters clear, however, there can be no accession on the cheap. We must not, on the pretext that we are making history, fail to make proper preparations for enlargement, and that means that the candidate countries must fulfil the requisite conditions: adopt the acquis communautaire and be in a position to implement it.

Admittedly this will require transitional periods, as there have already been when we previously undertook enlargement to include countries that are now full Members of the European Union. We must, however, be reasonable. Regarding the duration of these periods, there is no room for demagoguery. We are well aware that definitive transitional periods, if I may use the expression, do not establish conditions that are favourable for an enlargement that will, once, again be successful.

Another key point, public opinion in the various countries must indeed be informed and this must be done in such a way that they accept this enlargement. In speaking of informing public opinion, I am thinking, of course, of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, since they need to promote this cause which is fundamental for them. We must be able to count on an extremely strong allegiance in these countries. I am, however, also thinking of public opinion within the European Union. Let us not close our eyes to the fact that there is a certain amount of reluctance within the European Union, and this is perhaps one of the reasons why you said, Mr Cox, that we do not talk enough about enlargement. Perhaps, suddenly, there are some parties that do not dare to talk about it. It is also possible that this reluctance exists because we do not talk about it enough. My own conclusion is that we should discuss it more, but also discuss it properly and better. It is very important, and therefore I am pleased that the Commission is working on an information campaign which Commissioner Verheugen wishes to make both extensive and decentralised.

Without wishing to tell him what to do, I believe that, in order to be efficient, it must fall in line with the expectations of public opinion and take on board the practical matters of concern to public opinion: security, as we must live in a Europe which is an area of freedom, freedom of movement, but also of security for its inhabitants; employment and the fear of social dumping, which I do not share, but which we must combat by means of rational arguments; the environment, for it is clear that everything to do with the environment, particularly nuclear safety, is a real requirement for the citizens of Europe; financing and, finally, corruption. In this information campaign, we must fight exaggerated fears, but also solve problems as they arise.

The matter of the allegiance of public opinion to the enlargement process was also highlighted by Mr Hänsch, and I think it lies at the very core of the debate. The European Union’s credibility is implicated in this. With this in mind, I understand the feeling of impatience that some of you have – the chairmen, Mr Hänsch, Mr Brok, and Mr Poettering – who would like the countries of Central and Eastern Europe to be able to take part in the next European Parliament elections in 2004. This contains a powerful idea, which is also a fine idea, namely that we shall not carry out enlargement in the face of opinion and that, effectively, the best way to carry out enlargement with the assent of opinion is by involving it in elections, since elections are the expression of democracy and the citizens’ means of gaining access to the political system.

Personally, in response to this demand, I would say, ‘Why not?’ Why not, indeed, if it is at all possible? And on the subject, let me again remind you, bearing in mind that this comment is not, as I think I said, intended to be technical or pessimistic or restrictive – that the European Union has set a date: 1 January 2003. It is up to the candidate countries to make the necessary efforts to achieve this, and it is up to us to assist them and also to make ourselves ready to accept them. Once again, however, let us not indulge in too much demagoguery, even if we can understand this impatience, let us be aware that it is not very likely that many countries that are currently candidates will be able to take part in the 2004 elections, even though we might like to see this. Let us adopt a positive and proactive line, but also one that is realistic.

Mr Cox wanted us to get to the heart of some difficult matters. I can assure him that this is the wish of the French Presidency. Mrs Hautala put her finger on a very sensitive issue: she suggested that the financial perspectives be reviewed in order to speed up the enlargement process. I need not stress, in this House, the strength of this proposal, or also the fact that it is perhaps a little risky too, with the danger of encountering certain problems here and there. That being said, I think it was not a bad idea to ask the question.

Once again, we can understand, as Mr Belder stated, our Hungarian, or Polish, or Czech friends asking us for signs. Without these, we shall be calling our credibility into question. However, and this will be my last word, as I want to get my point across clearly: I am no pessimist on the subject, I do not want to do things by halves, I want to see a strong option with regard to enlargement – in order to be credible, we must also be serious, we must make ourselves clearly understood, and we must also be able to gain the allegiance of the nations, the peoples of the candidate countries and also our own peoples. So we must not rush things.

Several years ago in Copenhagen we defined the requisite criteria. We are currently conducting serious proactive negotiations alongside the Commission. Let us create the conditions for success, for it is important that this enlargement is not a flash in the pan, not just a symbolic decision that will go on to create problems. This enlargement must be a genuine reunification enabling tomorrow’s Europe to operate with thirty Members as well as it works with fifteen, and even, with reference to this morning’s debate, perhaps better than it works with fifteen.

(Applause)

  Verheugen, Commission. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should just like to say a few words about the sine qua non for the scenario which many here have called for. The first sine qua non, of course, is that we ourselves must be ready. This has been stipulated several times already in the Councils in Berlin, Cologne and Helsinki and will again be expressly confirmed in Nice. We will be ready as soon the institutional reforms have been decided and have taken effect. We have a final date for that. Our final date is 2002.

This implies that we shall not be setting any more conditions. In other words, if the reform process, which I welcome, is to proceed and we already start setting our sights on a post-Nice agenda, perhaps another intergovernmental conference, then we cannot create a link of cause and effect between any such intergovernmental conference and enlargement by saying that its results must come in before the first wave of enlargement can take place. That is out of the question. It would have all the negative consequences which several speakers have evoked in connection with failure in Nice.

And it would be on our part. The financial conditions have been in place since Berlin; we have a budget of EUR 80 billion for the entire project and I shall not be asking for more money for pre-accession aid, for example, because I am satisfied that we can duly and properly disburse the resources at our disposal. I do not want to allow any backlogs to build up here, as has happened in other areas of foreign aid over a number of years. For now, I see no need to discuss the financial perspectives in connection with enlargement. We are assuming that we can implement the project up to 2006 within the framework of the financial perspectives.

As far as the other sine qua non are concerned, they are not within our powers of discretion or disposal. For the rest, the candidates alone set the pace of the process. None of you should be surprised if the negotiators, prime ministers, speakers and members of your national parliaments complain that it is all taking too long – apart from the fact that it is a favourite pastime in Europe – everything takes far too long with the Commission, I know all about that! You must not forget that these people represent interests. I would be most surprised if they did not exert any pressure. That is what they are there for, to exert pressure. But it is always worth asking, when someone complains that it is all taking too long, if their country has in fact supplied all the information requested, if their country has in fact already passed all the laws needed in order to adopt the acquis, if their country has in fact created all the structures needed in order to apply the acquis. If you ask these questions, you will frequently find that the other person is somewhat embarrassed, because they are often forced to admit that there is still work to be done back home.

I would advise great composure when faced with candidates pressing for deadlines. We stand by what we have said: we will be ready to welcome new members by 1 January 2003. That applies to anyone who is ready by then. We shall also help everyone to be ready by then. But the fact remains that, as things stand today, 3 October 2000, I cannot tell you when any single country in the accession process will be ready for accession. I cannot say that today of any one country.

You may of course conclude from this that we should set a date nonetheless. The problem is that, if you set a date, there is a danger that the enthusiasm for reform in these countries will wane. Why do you think certain politicians in these countries are pressing so hard for an accession date set in political stone? They are pressing so hard for a date because they want, if possible, to avoid tackling certain, extremely difficult reforms which they have yet to make. We need always to strike the right balance. If we do not set a date, we may cause disappointment; if we set too early a date, a certain complacency may creep in; in other words, we shall address the question of dates when the time is right, i.e. if we can say when a country is ready for accession and when it is not with a sufficient degree of certainty. Unfortunately, now is not the time. But, as I have already indicated, all the countries are approaching the point at which they will be ready for accession relatively quickly.

I should like to refer briefly to two or three comments made during the debate. Mr Hänsch said – in addition to much with which I agreed – that the safety of nuclear power stations was an important issue. Agreed! But just to be sure that there is no misunderstanding between us: you said that these nuclear power stations must be shut down before accession takes place. That is news to me. The policy was to agree with these countries on when nuclear power stations would be shut down. That was the condition for starting negotiations. And that is what happened. I hope that these countries will not be refused accession until the agreed closing dates have been reached, because that would be pretty late in some cases. I assume this was just a slip of the tongue.

I should like to make one other point: We did not – as Mr Marset Campos said – pressgang candidates into NATO at the same time. I raise this point because it is an extremely interesting point. In fact, as you will remember, NATO and the USA were most reticent to grant the wish of central and eastern European countries to join NATO. It took years for them to make up their mind. The pressure to join NATO, the idea of joining NATO did not originate in Washington, London or anywhere else; it arose quite clearly in Warsaw, Prague and Budapest. And I can tell you why; because these people wanted to be on the right side once and for all, i.e. securely anchored in the family of democratic nations. Which is also why they expressed their wish to join the European Union.

The last point which I would like to make concerns agriculture. It was said during the debate that opening the borders would cause the immediate collapse of agriculture in certain countries, such as Poland. Allow me to point out that the opening of borders to agricultural and other products has already been extensively agreed in the Europe Agreements. We have already done this to the widest extent. As far as agricultural produce is concerned, we have concluded an agreement with Poland whereby as much agricultural produce as possible – in fact nearly 100% of Polish agricultural produce – has free access to the European market even before accession and vice versa: our products have free access to the Polish market. In other words liberalisation of the trade in agricultural products has already been agreed and the Poles are not worried that Polish agriculture will collapse as a result. The problems which beset Polish agriculture are structural and social policy problems and we shall need to address them most intensively in due course.

I am delighted with the turn which this debate has taken so far; it shows me that we can count on a great deal of support from Parliament for principles which inform the way in which the negotiations are handled and for our resolve to start tackling outstanding problems quickly and resolutely.

(Applause)

IN THE CHAIR: MR PUERTA
Vice-President

President. – Thank you very much, Commissioner.
Mr Brok has the floor for a point of order.

  Brok (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, I have just one brief clarification and question to put to the Commissioner, with whose presentation I personally agree. We can only define the accession scenario if we ourselves undertake to be ready by the end of 2002. According to the motion presented here, the EU institutions, the Member States and the candidate countries will all help to ensure that we are ready before the European elections in 2004. That is what the motion says. That is not defining a scenario, it is endeavouring to achieve it. Perhaps this wording would allow us to reach a common position so that we can make the necessary effort.

  Verheugen, Commission. – (DE) Mr Brok, I have no problem whatsoever with this motion because it states quite clearly what our common policy is. We will be ready as of a certain date. We hope that everyone else will also be ready by that date. We shall help them to be ready by that date. It is just that, as things stand, I cannot guarantee that they will be ready.

  President. – Thank you very much for that clarification, Commissioner.

The various rapporteurs will now speak.

Mrs Carlsson has the floor first.

  Carlsson (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (SV) Mr President, today when I flew from Stockholm, in over Germany and then drove on down to historic Alsace, I could not help but feel grateful for this Europe of mine. I was born at a time when, and in a place where, there has been no direct reason for thinking of war and calamity. Before I was born, freedom and democracy had triumphed over oppression and the insanity of war, and a European Union was being formed. Today’s young people take peace for granted, and mistrust has been exchanged for reciprocity. There have been strains but, on the whole, peace and trade have established a closer association between people, now further consolidated by means of the currency union.

Today, when we are celebrating the united Germany and discussing Parliament’s attitude to the enlargement process, it is important to have an historical perspective in order to be able to look a long way ahead and understand that today’s generation of politicians too have perhaps at least as important decisions to make in favour of freedom, peace and democracy. Few people believed that it was possible to reunify Germany. Everyone was surprised by the dynamism of that process, which was so skilfully handled by Chancellor Kohl. Without his strong support for peace, Europe would have looked different today. What began with individual people’s courage and longing for peace led to the odious Wall’s being torn down stone by stone.

Approximately ten tears later, we therefore now have a responsibility to history to join together in completing the reunification of Europe and strengthening the integration process. It will totally change the EU. As I see it, there are, however, no other alternatives and nothing else is more to be desired. If today’s European Union does not succeed with further enlargement, it will not be living up to its own ideals. In that case, it will, in my view, have failed in its mission and purpose.

I have been entrusted with the task of acting as rapporteur where Estonia is concerned. In Sweden, we stood Monday after Monday in a number of squares around the country in order to show support for our Baltic brethren during the liberation process. Our support and commitment continue – to a large extent, for our own sake. More powerful cooperation is needed when it comes to our common sea, the Baltic. We have a lot to gain from more trade and more interchange. The Baltic States are small coastal States bordering on a powerful neighbour. They possess a rich source of culture, diversity and potential which the united Europe cannot do without. Each one of the countries is to be judged on the basis of its own merits. They are not to be judged en masse or on the basis of some special geopolitical position they might occupy. It must be the results of the negotiations which count. Enlargement ought not to be postponed because of the need to keep to timetables.

As may be seen from the report, I am enthusiastic about what a country can achieve in the course of ten years of reform work. I am impressed by the political consensus that exists and by the leadership exercised by Prime Minister Mart Laar. The EU has a lot to learn from Estonia’s free trade agreement, the route the country is taking towards the new economy and the work it is doing on integrating its Russian-speaking population. Obviously, the foundations of the EU must not be weakened and the candidate countries must comply with Community legislation. However, many politicians in the EU seem more concerned with developing the Union still further and with raising standards. There seems to be no let-up in the desire to devise detailed regulations. This creates new obstacles for the candidate countries.

As I see it, the enlargement process ought not to be dragged out unnecessarily. It is now that we are in a position to secure common values and benefits. As a conservative, I am incredibly thrifty with taxpayers’ money. Through increased cooperation in combating, above all, cross-border crime and environmental destruction, we can make enormous gains. The environment is the area which will constitute a stumbling block in the negotiations. As I see it, decades of mismanagement due to planned economies and the inherent irresponsibility of communism are not Estonia’s fault and should not be a reason for delaying membership. If it completes the negotiations effectively and purposefully, Estonia has a good chance of becoming one of the Union’s new Member States.

I should like to express my gratitude for the good will with which my report was received by the committee. The only amendment which has already been tabled is covered in my report, but I am pleased that the Greens wish to emphasise the importance of treating citizens equally.

Finally, substantial progress is important if energy and will are to be demonstrated in the negotiations. I am a little concerned about the way in which Parliament has handled this report on enlargement. Many of the amendments and the committee’s proposals in the Brok report go beyond the level of what is required in the EU at present and may be seen as new hurdles. All credit to the rapporteur, Mr Brok, draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, who has tried, albeit without success, to get some focus into the report. Parliament’s task is now to reduce, not increase, the obstacles to successful enlargement across all borders.

  Schroedter (Verts/ALE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we consider the progress made by Latvia since independence to be a real success story. In 1991, Latvia was still a province of the Soviet Union; since then it has built up a basic democratic order and its own state, introduced a market economy and created new ownership rights, to mention just a few points.

Imagine if such radical economic and social change had taken place in your own country in such a short space of time. Only then, I think, can you have any notion of what the people of Latvia have achieved over recent years. In this context, it would be positively humiliating if the European Union failed to get started on the reforms needed in order to be able to receive the central and eastern European countries, Malta and Cyprus; and those who continue to apply the brakes here are merely demonstrating that they are much less capable of reform than any of the candidate countries, especially little Latvia. They are simply not entitled to chide this Baltic country like a stupid schoolboy.

We would also be belittling the achievement of the Latvian people if we postponed accession indefinitely after Nice. Negotiations with Latvia did not start until after the Helsinki summit. Nonetheless, it is, in my opinion, in a position to move forward to the first enlargement wave in the enlargement process. The critical comments and the proposals in my report for urgently needed progress in administrative and social reform are designed to bring Latvia quickly and successfully into the European Union.

In the present circumstances, one thing is clear: the key to this is to be found in a transparent administration at all levels. This does not just mean a law for the civil service; it also means giving young civil servants opportunities and paying them a decent wage. The basis for this must be a clear code of conduct which excludes corruption and, hence, gives citizens confidence that there is a truly independent administration taking decisions for the general good. Any such administration must be in a position to adopt the acquis quickly, to develop a stakeholder society and to provide proof of efficient auditing of accounts. This would enable Latvia to obtain more European assistance. As you all know, I have been calling for pre-accession aid to be correlated more closely with the mechanisms of the European Structural Funds for a long time now. I still fail to understand why two yardsticks always seem to apply here. Whereas we take decentralised invitations to tender for granted in our development areas, ISPA projects are decided in Brussels. Whereas we, in the meantime, are required to prove that the social partners are involved and that regional or local authorities help to implement resources, this arrangement is still not applied in the candidate countries.

How are the people there supposed to experience the people’s Europe in situ? A communications strategy is not enough, however good it may be. It is still hot air, Mr Verheugen; the actual agencies responsible for the project have not even noticed it exists. It is not enough; the whole strategy needs to be geared more to the citizens.

It is of paramount importance for the candidate countries to be more involved in the area of employment policy. The process of economic change and fast transition has not only brought successes; it has also resulted in social differences, increasing regional disparities and huge hidden unemployment, which is why these issues must take priority in the pre-accession strategy.

I see an urgent need to focus more on structural measures here and not to postpone implementing freedom of movement as a response to unemployment in Latvia. It is our job to continue to support Latvia with the integration of the Russian population. We should also bear in mind that the burden which we have laid on Latvia, namely to build ramparts for the European Union, – that this hurdle cannot be supported by infringing the principles of human dignity, including the human right to asylum. That applies to both Latvia and the European Union.

  Hoff (PSE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, my report on Lithuania’s application to join the European Union closes with the following sentence: It is still too early to establish a position on when and with whom Lithuania should accede, but efforts should be aimed at making possible a broad first enlargement wave in which Lithuania is included. Lithuania applied to join the Union on 8 December 1995. Accession negotiations commenced in February 2000. Lithuania’s target date for accession is 1 January 2004.

The assessment of the political criteria for meeting accession requirements is – I hope all will agree – without question unreservedly positive. This month, on 8 October, Lithuania will be holding parliamentary elections. Whatever the outcome of these elections, we may safely assume that the main parties will lend their unwavering support to Lithuania’s accession to the European Union.

Lithuania is on its way to joining the World Trade Organisation. Before I go on, a quick update: negotiations between Lithuania and the WTO were successfully concluded yesterday, meaning that Lithuania expects to join shortly following ratification. Today the Lithuanian economy is on the mend. There was negative fallout from the Russian economic crisis in 1998, due to the high level of trade with Russia, and the gross domestic product was still falling in 1998 and 1999. The macro-economic situation is now stabilising. Lithuania has considerable potential for long-term economic growth. The International Monetary Fund has forecast growth of 2.1% in the gross domestic product this year. There is a good chance of this, but particular efforts are still needed.

Policy still needs to concentrate on creating the right conditions for innovation and modernisation in key sectors of the economy. The fact that the Lithuanian currency is still pegged to the dollar is also important here, because as the dollar rises, so too does the value of the litas against the euro. As a result, revenue from exports from Lithuania to the euro zone is down and, similarly, producers are of course facing stiffer competition on the domestic market from exporters in the euro zone. There are plans to peg the litas to the euro in the second half of 2001. As I said, despite a number of shortcomings and weaknesses, Lithuania has made good progress in the economic area and is only a short way away from a working market economic.

As far as the Ignalina nuclear power station is concerned, there is no doubt that the two Chernobyl-type reactors need to be decommissioned. Lithuania voted an energy strategy through parliament at the end of 1999 and, in May of this year, the Seimas passed a law to decommission unit 1 in 2004. A decision on the decommissioning of unit 2 will then be taken in 2004. I am most grateful to Commissioner Verheugen for clarifying the question of the closure of nuclear power plants. It is an important point here too.

Now to Kaliningrad. This issue requires a special effort and, in my view, cannot be dealt with purely as a problem on the fringe of the issue of the accession of Lithuania and Poland. In the widest sense, what is at stake here is cooperation between the European Union and the Russian Federation. The point at issue is whether Kaliningrad should be enclosed and cut off or included in the development prospects for the region. The multi-faceted problems and the dangers inherent in the social and economic crisis in the region will not be averted, let alone solved, by isolating it. Our motto in this case must be: stabilisation through cooperation. That is the only way of giving Kaliningrad a chance to improve its development potential.

Lithuania is playing a positive role here. Lithuania and Russia recently presented proposals for joint projects in various areas under the NIDA initiative. The EU is being asked to adopt them in the Northern Dimension action plan. Ways of fostering good neighbourly relations need to be found in the interest of the region as a whole. And also in the interests of cooperation between the European Union and the Russian Federation.

  Gawronski (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, Poland, the country for which I am rapporteur, is the largest and most important of the countries which are preparing to enter the European Union, but it is also, as we know, the most problematic, so much so that there have been rumours that it might be excluded from the first group, the group of countries which are to join the Union first.

These rumours are groundless and I am pleased to be able to tell you and, most importantly, our Polish friends, that we met with the Italian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Lamberto Dini, yesterday, and he categorically denied ever having heard such a possibility being voiced during international meetings. Poland will join the European Union when both it and the Union are ready, but it will certainly be part of the first group.

Having said this, we must not deny that there are difficulties, and my report is in fact a summary of the progress made and the difficulties encountered along the road to accession. The Warsaw government and parliament have done their utmost in recent months to speed up the transposal of Community legislation. The Polish authorities have also recently carried out major reforms and, although the Commission’s last annual report on Poland’s progress towards accession was somewhat negative, I hope and trust – and in this I am reassured by Commissioner Vergheugen’s words just now – that the report which is published in a few weeks time will be more encouraging.

Nevertheless, as I was saying, there is still a great deal to do in Poland in terms of administrative reform, industrial restructuring and, of course, comprehensive structural change right across the agricultural sector. Therefore, in order to overcome these obstacles, to resolve these issues, the Poles – like the citizens of the other candidate countries – need incentives. If, for example, we place a question mark over whether it will be possible for the citizens and workers of candidate countries to move freely across the European Union right from the word go, if we want to continue to deny the citizens of Eastern Europe recognition of that right which is one of the fundamental principles of the Union, then we are further diminishing support for the difficult reforms which must take place before they can join the Union.

This brings us to another sore point: public support, both within and outside the European Union. Support from the public is poor and fades with the passage of time, as Pat Cox and many of the Members who spoke after him pointed out, so roll on the information campaign announced by the Commission, although I must say that the amount of funding allocated to this campaign did seem rather low.

Despite the words of the Commissioner, who declared himself passionately in favour of enlargement, Brussels sometimes gives the impression that it is trying to slow down the process, and this is reflected in the attitude of the candidate countries whose citizens become despondent and confused. We must convince the citizens of both Europe in its present form and the Europe which is to come, the Europe of the future, the enlarged Europe, that the costs – which are heavy and onerous – are still less than the benefits which will come in the immediate future.

Many of us feel that it would have been a good idea to specify the dates for accession in order to encourage the countries and give them a sense of our continuing support. In the past, specifying dates has served to speed up the integration process, but it was difficult to come to an agreement on this point and so we decided unanimously to refrain from discussing the dates in our individual reports but to give a – if the truth be told – rather vague indication in Mr Elmer Brok’s report.

In Poland, there is talk, at least at official level, of 2003. Even if accession does not come about in 2003 it must take place as soon as possible, and we must make every effort to make it happen for we are in debt to those countries – the countries of Eastern Europe – which are as European as the countries of Western Europe and whose only crime, as the Commissioner himself pointed out, was to find themselves, through no fault of their own, on the wrong side of an artificial line across the middle of our continent.

There are too many promises which we have made to Poland, the countries of Eastern Europe, the former Communist countries, and failed to keep. ‘Rid yourselves of Communism,’ we said, ‘and we will help you’. They got rid of Communism and we did not help them. So we cannot be surprised if, faced with the increasing divide between rich and poor and the spread of crime, prostitution and drugs, an increasing proportion of the citizens of these countries have reached the point where they would prefer to revert to the old regime and live under a Communist dictatorship.

Should this trend gather momentum, it would be clear confirmation that our policy for Eastern Europe has failed. Ladies and gentlemen, let us do our utmost to avoid this.

  Schröder, Jürgen (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, the subject of my report is the Czech Republic and its request to become a member of the European Union. Not only are the Czechs my immediate neighbours; as a citizen of Saxony, I sat in exactly the same boat as them, as it were, for decades. I should now like the Czechs to come back on board as soon as possible, this time in a boat which is solid and the course of which the Czechs can help plot.

My good wishes apart, a report on the progress of the Czech Republic towards accession to the European Union must, of course, be as objective as possible. The objectivity of my report is certified by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. Plus, the report has been enriched by contributions from my fellow members in all the groups, whom I thank. I was delighted that my report was adopted unanimously in committee on 14 September.

The criticism levied by the European Commission in its regular report in 1999, was not enthusiastically received by the Czech Republic, but it understood that it was meant to be helpful. There has since been a push forward in the Czech Republic. There has been progress in the economic area. After a three-year recession, the economy has turned around. In central and eastern Europe, the Czech Republic has the second highest per capita income after Slovenia. As a result of clever fiscal policy, direct foreign investment topped EUR 5.45 billion last year. There were also positive developments in the privatisation of the banking system.

As far as cause for criticism is concerned, as I state in my report, the European Parliament stresses the need to ensure a high standard of safety at nuclear facilities and to carry out the relevant environmental impact assessments.

It also calls for the judiciary to be improved in order to address the problem of corruption, which the Commissioner has already discussed, and to achieve more secure rule of law.

One problem specific to the Czech Republic, especially on the German-Czech border, is the problem of prostitution, especially child prostitution. This problem does not exist solely on the Czech side, it exists on both sides and it is therefore a problem which we must resolve jointly.

There is still one point which crops up constantly when talk turns to the Czech Republic and that is the problem of the Roma. We acknowledged in committee that this problem is a complex social problem, including in the Czech Republic. Parliament supports the Czech Republic in continuing efforts to improve the standard of living of the Roma minority, but calls on the Czech Government to take further specific measures to integrate the Roma economically and socially.

There is also a paragraph in my report dealing with the decrees of the Beneš government. We are delighted that the Czech government is prepared to review the decrees dating from 1945 and 1946 in order to ascertain whether they run counter to the EU law in force and the Copenhagen criteria. I should like to state quite clearly at this point that this is not some sort of attempt to rewrite history on our part. There is no question of that. It is Today and, more importantly, Tomorrow, which are at stake. What is important to me – and my colleagues in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy supported me here – is that the Copenhagen criteria, which the Czechs have also acknowledged, should continue to apply and I should like the Czechs themselves to review their own legal system, if necessary page by page, in order to ascertain if there are any laws which are discriminatory. We should not interfere, especially we Germans!

(Applause)

After the fall of the Communist system a decade ago, the Czech Republic underwent radical change which the majority of the people wanted and supported, but which also demanded huge effort and endeavour on their part. Numerous weaknesses still present in this country are the legacy of decades of dictatorship. In this respect, politicians from the part of Europe for which a happier fate was in store after the Second World War would do well to be sparing with their criticism of countries like the Czech Republic.

  Wiersma (PSE), rapporteur. – (NL) Mr President, country rapporteurs are sometimes accused of being unpaid ambassadors of their candidate state and of being blinded by their love. There is that risk and I am going to try to prove the opposite is true in the case of Slovakia. Rapporteurs who take their work seriously develop close contacts. This is how understanding and compassion grow.

Slovakia is not an object but a country where people actually live, people who are ambitious yet extremely frustrated and who, in the language of meetings, are weighed down by a long and punishing agenda. I do not want to encumber this agenda any more, nor do I want to lighten it. A badly prepared Slovakia cannot become a member of the European Union. We are in the middle of the negotiating process. Slovakia belongs to the so-called Helsinki group and would naturally like to reach the premier division. This is where that country should have been classified all along, but relations with the European Union were strained under the previous government. We support the ambition of the current government. Slovakia has not been condemned to the second division and it is logical that it should like to join together with the Czech Republic.

The Slovak Government is trying to carry out an overtaking manoeuvre. We will assess this based on our criteria. Slovakia does not really gain from political exemptions either. The requested reform is needed. Next year, Slovakia must seize its chance. Then we will have the really important negotiating chapters to deal with. My report, which is before us today, contains some points of criticism which can nearly all be lumped under the same title of implementation. Many aspects have been regulated well, and still are, at least on paper, but when it comes to translating them into practise, that is where the problems arise. In fact Slovakia is not alone in this.

I would like to list a few issues in no particular order. Slovakia is the transit country for many criminal activities. Policing must be stepped up, also in tandem with the European Union, and more investments must be made to improve border control. The government has set up an anti-corruption programme which has my admiration and appreciation. I applaud it, but we are waiting for the assessments with concrete results. As Commissioner Verheugen said before, the fight against corruption is a key priority, because corruption undermines democracy and also deters foreign investors. The situation of the Roma people leaves a great deal to be desired. This has been mentioned more than once already today. More funds are needed to implement existing government proposals. Once again, the plan is there, but the implementation has not quite got off the ground. Moreover, Slovakia needs to hold an open debate on how people perceive the Roma people. A distinction must be drawn between judgment and prejudice; otherwise we will continue to have a lack of understanding, which will stand between them and us like an invisible wall. The Law on the Use of Minority Languages is a large step in the right direction but the technical implementation of this act has been inadequate.

I am also critical of Slovakia’s capacity to govern and its organisation of financial control. This was, in fact, confirmed when we debated other countries. I would also call on Slovakia to set up an active regional policy because the socio-economic discrepancies within that country are still far too pronounced.

Now for the good news, because this actually eclipses the bad news. Slovak democracy is developing at a steady pace, which has not always been the case. We have noticed a great deal of improvement in macro-economic terms. The Commission reports have so far been very positive. The level of improvement has even been such that Slovakia has been admitted to the exclusive club of the OESO, and I would like to extend my warmest congratulations to Slovakia on this achievement. I believe that this decision came into force last week. The privatisation of public companies, including banks, is on the agenda. The reform of the legal system, as requested, is in full swing and the agreements on the closure of the nuclear reactors are being respected. I would like to concur with Commissioner Verheugen in this respect. The acquis is also being implemented at a satisfying rate. Moreover, the government is constantly working on maintaining social consensus – this is in itself a different matter – an important point in most enlargement countries, because without social consensus, it will not be possible to implement the heavy reform programme, and as is apparent in Slovakia, this can also be done in a way which is successful because the support for EU membership is still very strong in Slovakia.

What Slovakia must now do is to bite the bullet. The overtaking manoeuvre which I mentioned a moment ago can now be carried out. The problems I mentioned are not insurmountable. Over the past few years, Slovakia has developed a new dynamic which will enable the country to move towards the European Union quickly and effectively and to turn its accession into a success.

On a final note, I would like to take the liberty of making one comment on Slovakia’s home affairs policy. We do not make a habit of interfering in home affairs, but there are proposals to call for early elections in Slovakia. There has even been a referendum to gauge whether people are in favour of this. It is, of course, up to the Slovaks to decide. I believe it would be harmful to Slovakia to organise elections at this point in time. It would once again delay the accession process, which has happened before under the Meciar administration. It would be wise, therefore, if the present administration were to try to complete the task in hand.

  Queiró (UEN), rapporteur. – (PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I feel that it would be right and proper to begin my intervention by referring to the fact that, today, 3 October, we are celebrating the first ten years of German reunification. This extraordinary event, symbolised by the fall of the Berlin wall which separated two blocks of countries and also divided one nation, to a certain extent represented a pioneering step in the process of European enlargement towards Central and Eastern Europe.

Despite the difficulties, the contradictions and the social and economic disparities, which, as everyone knows, still exist between West and East Germany, the truth is that a project for a collective future of peace, freedom and development triumphed. This would probably not have been possible if the voices advocating caution and those that supported a particular kind of technical and bureaucratic rationalism had not been pushed into the background. The European Council, which met in Copenhagen following this reunification, decided to integrate into the European Union any associated States of Central and Eastern Europe that wished to join. The 1993 Copenhagen Council made it clear that the accession of the countries from Central and Eastern Europe would depend on their meeting the obligations that are part and parcel of membership of the Union. In other words, these States would have to fulfil a range of economic and political conditions that were considered to be essential prerequisites for their integration. On 30 March 1998, a negotiation process was finally opened with the first group of countries, including Hungary, the country which is the subject of the progress report now under discussion in the European Parliament.

I think I can say that this report, which has been duly discussed and improved upon in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy where it received unanimous approval, describes and analyses extremely thoroughly the current stage of Hungary’s path towards accession, in its dual approach to the issue. Firstly, Parliament has used it as a tool to assess the periodic report drafted by the Commission in 1999 on Hungary’s progress. Secondly, the report serves as both an expression and the result of the vision that the rapporteur has been putting together on Hungary’s current situation.

In this speech, I propose to highlight and discuss the six aspects of Hungary’s changing situation with a view to its accession to the European Union, which warrant specific mention. First of all, in terms of fulfilling the political criteria that were laid down in Copenhagen, Hungary’s situation is, by and large, satisfactory. We have seen a consolidation of the democracy which is strengthening the positive trends that have already been shown. The problems that do remain are not therefore related to the exercising or safeguarding of civil or political rights but involve fighting more effectively against some less positive aspects.

In this context, the issue of integrating the ethnic gypsy minority into Hungarian society has been central to the discussions held in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. In our opinion, efforts to abolish all discrimination against the Roma community must be based on a raft of positive measures which have, in part, been launched by the Hungarian Government as part of a medium-term action plan which is supported by the PHARE programme, particularly in the field of education and in specific programmes to improve employment and housing.

These policies must lead to the free and unforced assimilation of individuals belonging to the gypsy community. This was the idea that we wished to convey in this part of the report and, therefore, we cannot fully agree with the wording of Recital c, which is the result of an amendment approved in committee and emphasises the fact that a situation of segregation still remains in children’s education, as does severe discrimination in various sectors of society, the economy and the public sector. This is not borne out by my own observation of the current situation.

Secondly, it is worth raising the issue of Hungary’s economic situation, which has seen improved growth and made Hungary the economic leader in the region. Public finances have been cleaned up and we have seen a marked improvement in the balance of payments. The pattern of consumption has changed as a result of higher salaries, lower unemployment and a reduction in the rate of inflation.

Thirdly, with regard to agriculture, which has a lower level of productivity than in the European Union, we need to ensure that the agricultural market is fully opened up to the capital that is necessary for land privatisation, for the modernisation of farms and marketing structures and for improving yields. The prohibition on non-Hungarian citizens buying farmland is, however, an obstacle to setting a fair price for this land.

Fourthly, there is the topical issue of the fight against organised crime, specifically crime that has its roots in Russia. The high level of crime and the considerable implications of this type of crime are perhaps Hungary's most serious domestic issue, despite the fact that the Hungarian Parliament has already voted in favour of a raft of measures on money-laundering, on longer sentences for drug-trafficking and prostitution, on confiscating funds and on a witness-protection programme for informers.

My fifth point, which concerns the adoption of the acquis communautaire, is that we must acknowledge the fact that Hungary is continuing to act in a balanced way. Finally, there is the issue of the environment and the problems of cross-border pollution resulting from Hungary’s geographical situation. The pollution that we have seen in the Danube and Tizsa rivers, caused by cyanide leaks in Romania, is a classic example of this situation.

I would like to say a final word in order to voice the concerns of some of my colleagues in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy regarding Soviet-made nuclear reactors. This issue needs to be addressed seriously but within a broader framework that covers not just Hungary but also the other candidate countries that still operate this antiquated and relatively unsafe technology. I am therefore pleased to see that it has been addressed in Mr Brok’s general report on enlargement. It now only remains for me to ask my fellow Members to ensure that we have an enlightening debate and a vote which contributes, both in its outcome and in the way it is expressed, to a meeting between the old democracies of the West and the new Democracies of the East, for the sake, ultimately, of the European Union’s enlargement process.

  Bethell (PPE-DE). – The rapporteur for Bulgaria, Mr Geoffrey Van Orden, has asked me to speak on his behalf since he has to attend the defence debate at the Conservative Party Conference in Bournemouth, England, today.

Bulgaria has made great progress in her preparations for accession. The current resolution and report focus on certain of the more controversial issues, namely nuclear safety, border controls, the treatment of minorities and the question of corruption. Economic issues will be dealt with later.

Bulgaria is anxious to join the European Union and NATO. It has already demonstrated its commitment to regional security and stability through practical and political action, as was evidenced during the Kosovo conflict when Bulgaria sided with NATO allies, possibly to the detriment of her own short term interest.

The after-effects of the conflict, particularly the obstruction of the Danube, damaged the Bulgarian economy and it is only right that urgent assistance should be given by the international community. But Bulgaria has made a wider contribution to regional security through the mechanisms of the Stability Pact.

Turning to another aspect of security, Bulgaria has also made great strides in tackling border control, with the ambitious target of bringing border policing up to Schengen standards by 2001. This has been achieved by a fundamental reorganisation of the border police, once a demotivated conscript force; it is now a professional volunteer service. Much of this has been carried out with assistance from the European Union. The security of Bulgaria's borders and the effectiveness and integrity of its policing is of vital interest to the Union, bearing in mind Bulgaria's situation on the main through-route into Western Europe from Asia Minor and the Middle East.

Within its borders Bulgaria is addressing the problem of minorities. The Bulgarian Government has made efforts to overcome the problems of exclusion of the large Roma community, comprising roughly 4% of the population. Much more needs to be done.

It will take time for the benefits of the fundamental changes in Bulgaria to be felt by the population as a whole. Meanwhile, in a more open society with greater opportunity, people need to be assured that those in power, whether in government or in administration, are exercising their authority for the benefit of the country as a whole. Democracy and the market economy are vibrant forces in Bulgaria, but they are still young and need to be sustained by the confidence and trust of the whole population. The suspicion of corruption is a most destructive force and it must be tackled as a matter of urgency.

This is nowhere more true than in the case of nuclear power, where legitimate concerns over nuclear and environmental safety are in danger of being hijacked by the anti-nuclear power lobby. In recent weeks we have all been reminded of the perils of over-dependence on oil and the need for diversity in energy provision. The Kozloduy nuclear power plant accounts for half the internal power generation in Bulgaria. Safety considerations must of course remain paramount but other factors must also be taken into account in determining the country's most suitable long-term energy strategy.

I wish to emphasise how important it is that Bulgaria should be assessed in its own right in terms of its progress towards early membership of the European Union. If Europe is to embrace this historic opportunity for enlargement, removing the divisions created by the Soviet occupation and the communist experiment, candidate countries must be given a chance to accede within a reasonable timeframe. This applies to Bulgaria.

Finally, I would like to mention a dark cloud that hangs over Europe and here I speak personally. 23 years ago Bulgarian secret agents went on a murderous rampage in Western Europe, attacking certain individuals, including my friend Georgi Markov, the well known writer and broadcaster, who was murdered in broad daylight in a London street. Former Soviet agents have admitted their part in this dastardly crime but documents have been found incriminating Bulgarian citizens as well – Bulgarian agents of the communist government. No progress has been made in solving the crime. Successive presidents promised to take action but nothing was done.

I will not myself be able to vote for this report unless progress is made in solving the murder of Georgi Markov.

  Nicholson of Winterbourne (ELDR), rapporteur. – Mr President, Romania's people welcome wholeheartedly the European Union's Helsinki decision to incorporate Romania in the first wave of the current enlargement countries. Indeed, 80% of Romania's people believe that Romania belongs in the European Union. Perhaps it is no coincidence that those same public polls show that the European Union Ambassador is the second most popular person in Romania today.

Since last December, therefore, there have been many encouraging signs. Acute poverty has been a key problem in Romania since 1990 and under the present government, the economy is at last showing real signs of improvement. The substantial loans from the World Bank and the IMF and the European Union show that success. The current Prime Minister, Mugur Isarescu, is himself on secondment from the Central Bank and therefore has excellent relationships with the international financial institutions.

The better economy should increase a still fragile public confidence in the democratic institutions and de-politicisation of the civil service must be a high priority. Romania enjoys a free press. This must be encouraged and supported. Tackling corruption at all levels will assist in building a free and open civil society.

Romania nearly fails on the Copenhagen criteria with regard to children. Here we must remember that the collapse of the Soviet Union has left thousands of children in desperate straits throughout the Union; children whose families have given way unwillingly to pressures, children who have been institutionalised wrongly, children who are treated cruelly, children who die needlessly, children who are adopted by other countries illegally, children whose only future is to be exchanged for hard currency or household goods. Central and Eastern Europe and the West Balkans are a prime source for the international child slave trade.

In Romania the government, with the active support of Commissioner Verheugen, the World Bank and the United Nations, have given us an opportunity to establish good doctrines and best practice in the region. The formation of a high level group is something that I commend to my colleagues.

Romania has many strengths. It has a unique and flourishing culture. It has an established artistic and musical heritage. It has strength in adversity. Members will recall that our helping Kosovo was timely and was of great importance. This will be reflected in the coming challenge of the OSCE which Romania adopts in January 2001 and perhaps in 2002 when Romania's probable membership of NATO will be reviewed.

We all applaud Romania for the Olympic gold, silver and bronze medals it has won in the last fortnight. We must look forward to Romania becoming a full and active member of the Union without undue delay. I therefore commend my report and its proposals to the House and urge Romania to make haste to implement the acquis communautaire and the Copenhagen criteria and become a member of the European Union.

IN THE CHAIR: INGO FRIEDRICH
Vice-President

  Martelli (PSE), rapporteur. – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, your rapporteur endorses the contents of the Commission’s report on Slovenia and notes that the criticisms expressed in 1998 gave the Slovenian authorities a salutary shock, prompting them to speed up adoption of the measures necessary for accession to take place. This change of pace has placed Slovenia among the countries whose preparations to enter the Union are most advanced, and so, in my opinion, it is highly likely that this country will be one of the first to join.

Certain issues are still to be settled, of course, but they have been discussed on various occasions both at meetings between the parliamentary delegations and in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. They are the subject of amendments which we are going to discuss tomorrow and include the closing down of duty-free outlets before the end of the year, the restructuring of public companies and the adjustment of banking law and the insurance sector, and, more generally, the modernisation of the entire sector of the administration of justice, which has to guarantee independence and impartiality, and all the public administrations. I call upon the new parliament, which will take up office a fortnight from now, and the new government to make these matters a priority.

We must insist on a timely, appropriate information campaign for Slovenia as well, in order to make all the citizens aware of the benefits of joining the European Union. Parliament could contribute actively to these initiatives by opening documentation units and involving the public through schools and via their cultural, professional, social and working environments. Parliament’s resolution of April 1999 stressed the convergence of the positions of the European Union and Slovenia on economic policy and security, and in this past year Slovenia has indeed made a major contribution to the Stability Pact for South-East Europe. Slovenia supported the action of NATO and the Member States during the war in Kosovo and, considering the difficulty of making such a decision, this can be taken as evidence not only of the important role played by this country in the region but also of the convergence of its interests with those of the European Union.

I would like to take this opportunity to invite Commissioner Verheugen to make representations to the Commission and the Council of Europe so that the European Union can revise its position and invite the Serbian opposition, which has just won the elections, not to stay away from the second ballot, for that would be to hand Milosevic a virtual victory on a plate without a political fight, potentially providing him with dangerous grounds for remaining in power.

The stability of the entire south-east region depends on the disputes that divide different, neighbouring countries being resolved. It is therefore important for the Slovenian authorities to come to a swift agreement with Croatia in order to bring all bilateral disputes, particularly border disputes, to a close. This will ensure greater stability, improve the climate for bilateral relations and provide all the peoples concerned with enhanced opportunities for economic development.

  Poos (PSE), rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, the report on the accession of Cyprus, which I am honoured to present to you, in comparison with the series of reports which you have heard about this afternoon, includes a special political aspect. This is a candidate country where a third of the territory has since 1974 been occupied by the Turkish army and where, because of a particularly impervious line of demarcation, the fundamental principles of the European Union cannot be applied across all of the territory.

The report which it is my honour to submit, which was also unanimously adopted in committee, observes that the part of the territory controlled by the legal authority fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria. Cyprus has a viable and prosperous market economy and should not encounter any particular problems in adopting the acquis communautaire. I have a duty to point out, however, that transposing the acquis communautaire is taking too long and that Cyprus, like other candidate countries moreover, should tighten up its administrative, fiscal and legal systems.

I am convinced that Cyprus’ accession could serve as a catalyst and a driving force in finding a solution to the political problem of the division of the island. Perpetuation of the status quo following the Turkish invasion of July-August 1974 is not acceptable to the European Union.

We therefore support the proximity talks which are currently being conducted under the auspices of the United Nations. We must however also point out that the definitive solution, a fair and lasting solution, must fully comply with both the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions, with this being, quite simply, the international law in force, and also the principles governing the European Union. I am thinking, of course, primarily of the political principles, but also the principles of freedom of movement and of establishment.

Now that both Cyprus and Turkey are candidate countries, the Cyprus conflict ceases to be peripheral to Europe but rather an internal Community conflict. We must therefore have recourse to every means possible and to every asset available to us. Immediate confidence-building measures are essential as a way out of the current deadlock. The presence of one soldier for every six civilians, including the Turkish colonists, in the occupied zone of Northern Cyprus is unique in Europe, and even in the world.

Your rapporteur therefore proposes that the series of confidence-building measures and measures to dismantle the status quo should begin with the demilitarisation of the island, something that has, in fact, been demanded by a number of Security Council resolutions since 1983.

The Turkish Cypriot community has nothing to lose and indeed has everything to gain from accession. Both its security and cultural identity will be fully respected. Simply belonging to the European Union guarantees certain rights. Europe must become a responsible player in finding a solution to the Cyprus question. To this end, a key role will fall, without prejudice obviously to the Commission’s own role, to our High Representative for the CFSP, Mr Javier Solana.

  Stenzel (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time.

Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended.

There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic.

As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses.

It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time.

Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU.

Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis.

It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession.

The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here.

Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.

  Berès (PSE), draftsperson for the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, we wish to make our contribution to this debate. There is a debate, which is often fuelled here or there, to find out if we should examine the process for the accession of candidate countries to the Union with regard to the criteria for real convergence or for nominal convergence. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs considers that this is not the real debate. We wish to ensure that there is both real and nominal convergence.

Looking at the Copenhagen and then the Maastricht criteria, we feel that they contain the bulk of what we need to ensure that the accession of candidate countries progresses in favourable conditions, i.e. with respect for the interests of both sides, the candidate countries and the current members of the European Union. But if we want matters to progress smoothly, we must firstly foster real convergence, and in order to do that, we feel that the European Union must also contribute towards gradually upgrading the candidate countries’ production base.

The figures are impressive. Probably, according to the latest available estimates, it will take EUR 200 billion to bring the candidate countries’ infrastructures and environment up to being in a position to experience real convergence, i.e. promoting a higher level of investment in order to enable these countries’ economies to meet the Copenhagen criteria.

We also think it appropriate for there to have to be some flexibility when examining the criteria for the reduction in the inflation rate or the exchange rate pegging. These are the elements for nominal convergence and, as we have seen from our experience within the European Union, this type of convergence may itself also contribute towards promoting real convergence. The experiences of Italy and Portugal obviously come to mind, and we can observe the same phenomenon with regard to the candidate countries, but for that a certain amount of flexibility is necessary in order to enable the necessary adjustments in the catch-up process. This is particularly valid with regard to the matter of prices.

With this in view, we feel it is essential to implement a genuine macroeconomic dialogue among peers, among fellows, at the level of Ministers for Finance and the central banks, even before accession, and, no doubt, not only regarding the monetary issues, but also on what within the European Union we term the coordination of economic policy. This coordination covers questions of common interest, questions of unemployment, innovation, and the use of government revenue.

The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs also thinks particular attention must be paid to upgrading monitoring systems in the as yet embryonic prudential and banking sector, which represents a potential risk for access to the financing of small- and medium-sized businesses.

Finally, in Mr Brok’s report, Parliament requests that the liberalisation of capital, particularly in the short term, should be carried out gradually in order to prevent any speculative phenomena on the exchange markets.

One final point, Mr President, regarding the implications of membership of the euro area, which we think is both a right and a duty. Once the conditions have been fulfilled, there is no reason why either candidate countries or the countries currently members of the euro should object to candidate countries entering the third stage of Economic and Monetary Union.

Much more than this, that membership will establish a commitment to the political project and to the close coordination of economic and social policies. Monetary Union is not merely a monetary area. It is also an economic and monetary union. Mutual interest means no waiver for these countries, but as far as we are concerned too there should be nothing exclusive about membership of the euro area as long as the criteria which we have defined among ourselves are met. These countries aspire to join the European Union according to the criteria which we have defined collectively.

  Wuermeling (PPE-DE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has discussed the question of extending the internal market to the candidate countries in a highly committed and serious manner, because an internal market between such different economic areas as the European Union and the candidate countries is unprecedented in economic history. According to calculations in a study carried out on behalf of the Commission, it will take 35 years to halve the difference in the standard of living between the EU and the candidate countries. Nowhere in the world is the income differential at a border greater than between the EU and the candidate countries.

Even the levels between the USA and Mexico are closer together, which is why we are in favour of a considered, flexible strategy which does justice to the challenge in the area of the internal market. In its own initiative report, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market therefore calls for the instrument of transitional arrangements to be used in order to allow the economies to grow together harmoniously.

These interim solutions are not intended to set the status quo in stone but to act as intelligent buffers which adapt to changing circumstances. I am most grateful to Mr Verheugen for assuring us today that eastward enlargement is being prepared carefully; he also gave the impression that he will resist political pressure when he is asked to turn a blind eye. He has the express support of our committee there.

We welcome the progress which the candidate countries have made in harmonising with European law and we encourage them to continue this sometimes arduous and difficult work. I must say, I personally have been particular impressed with the success of Hungary, Estonia and Slovenia here. However, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market knows full well that merely passing laws is not enough. They must also be applied. European law is not just law in the books; it must also be law in action in the candidate countries.

Allow me, as a member of parliament from a region which directly borders a candidate country, to draw your attention to the specific situation which prevails there. The average wage on the German side is about ten times higher than it is ten kilometres further on in our neighbouring towns in the Czech Republic. The region was cut off behind the Iron Curtain and its economy is now lagging far behind. That is why structural changes are now needed in record time and why these regions which, after all, are home to some 20 million people throughout the EU – the equivalent of a medium-sized member state –, need our support in training employees, with investments in small and medium-sized enterprises and with infrastructure. We want to encourage the Commission to go ahead with its plan to draw up a work programme for the border regions which, as in the case of enlargement southwards, will, of course, also receive specific financial commitments.

By coincidence, there are some people from one such region – Upper Franconia – sitting in the public galleries right now. I was talking to them just now and, to tell you the truth, these people are worried about extending their region eastwards. It is not a question of a lack of information; it is a question of perfectly justified and specific causes for concern. We must ensure that the people there do not experience enlargement eastwards primarily in the form of lost jobs and closing businesses.

I therefore ask for today’s resolution to clearly state to these citizens that the European Parliament hears their concerns; that way we shall also have these people’s support for the European goal of enlargement in peace and freedom.

The European Parliament must vote in favour of the accession agreements. We stand for greater openness and greater transparency in negotiations and we expressly call on the Council of Ministers not to pursue a policy of concealing the facts as far as accession negotiations are concerned and to disclose what was discussed during negotiations. Then people will put aside their fears and support the huge project of enlarging Europe.

  Glante (PSE) , draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as a member of parliament from Brandenburg, an East-German Land, allow me to stress at this point how proud I am to act as spokesman for my committee in this debate. You might say that I represent a region which, ten years ago, represented a good part of enlargement to the east – I too lived on the other side of the Iron Curtain.

Allow me also to say at this point that I have a great deal of respect for the citizens of the central and eastern European countries who, ten years ago, had the courage to go into the streets and start this process. They deserve my thanks, as of course do the Member States of the European Union at the time and the Commission and Parliament, for the solidarity which they have always demonstrated with our regions.

I am speaking on behalf of the Industry Committee – to abbreviate its full title – on the areas of industry, external trade, research and energy. This is a broad political field which includes highly explosive smaller issues and covering this broad spectrum for the twelve different candidate countries from central Europe, Malta and Cyprus was a huge challenge. Allow me to comment on a few focal points.

Industrial change in the industrial sector is already in the final stage, although it remains on the agenda and needs to be implemented more intensively. This change places heavy demands on the people in the candidate countries but, at the same time, it guarantees their future and their children’s future. The economic changeover is not for the EU’s sake, a point which needs stressing. The competitiveness of their own country is at stake, irrespective of whether or not they join the EU.

Three points need highlighting in the industrial sector. First: industrial structures must continue to be adapted at least as quickly as hitherto. Secondly: there must be guaranteed improvements to and simplification of the legal framework for market access and financing. Stability fosters economic success. Thirdly: supplementary measures, such as training people, social protection and hence social stability, and an active job market policy are also extremely important.

In the trade sector it must be stressed that a national trade policy is incompatible with EU-membership. It is vital for trade policy between the EU and candidate countries to be coordinated pending accession and this is being done to an increasing extent. A few comments on new technologies: these countries too are moving from an industrial to an information society. This process runs in parallel to enlargement. If we are to have a common information area, we must make huge joint efforts in this sector. The information society is important to old as well as new sectors. The public sector should set an example in the central and eastern European and in the other candidate countries. Research must be strengthened overall, especially in new technological sectors, and it is vital for these countries to be included in the European networks.

Allow me to make one more comment on the energy sector, which has already been addressed once today. Energy generation and distribution must continue to be made more efficient, while complying with environmental standards. The whole European energy market will change on accession. The energy mix will no longer be the same.

A sensitive area has already been addressed today. I refer to nuclear energy. The most important aspect is compliance with current safety standards and the agreed closure of unmodernised plants. I too should like to stress on behalf of my committee that I am not in favour of linking accession dates to closures. They are two separate issues. However much some people wish it did, diversifying out of atomic energy does not form part of the Community acquis. Hence, if we are to be honest, we cannot keep setting up new hurdles in these areas. The process of change and the momentum of this process of change will cause structural adjustment difficulties on both sides.

Particular attention – and here I agree with the previous speaker – needs to be paid to border regions. Although there are excellent medium-term prospects for the border regions within the European Union, huge adjustment difficulties will need to be overcome in the short term. We already have experience of both from enlargement to Spain and Portugal. We – the Member States first, but also the EU – have a duty to provide suitable support for border regions.

On balance, our conclusion is this: the candidate countries have already gone part of the way. The EU must continue to give them permanent support and must not neglect its own duties as regards structural change, including that of the institutions.

  Smet (PPE-DE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, social policy is a cornerstone of the social model within Europe. It is also a productive factor which contributes to economic development, and although the candidate countries have made huge efforts in this respect, a great deal of effort is still required in order to reduce the developmental chasm between the European Union and the candidate countries to acceptable proportions. To give you a few examples: their wages are four times lower than ours, their purchasing power is two and a half times less than ours; and only Prague and Bratislava equal the EU’s average standard of living.

Compared with the European Union, participation in the labour market in Central and Eastern European countries is approximately five percent lower, and about twenty percent lower in the case of women. Child mortality in Eastern Europe is double that in Western Europe. In Romania, child mortality is, in fact, four times higher than that in the European Union. Technologically too, there are still discrepancies between East and West: there are four internet connections per one thousand inhabitants over there, as opposed to sixteen over here.

If the idea of swift accession is mooted – and the date of 2003 has been mentioned, even if the Commissioner does not want to commit to that date as yet, but that does stop some Western European governments from putting that date forward – this will presumably involve transitional measures or periods, and that is still a grey area. What procedure, for example, will be used to decide on these transitional periods? If the acquis communautaire has not been completely transposed, or cannot be fully transposed, or if it has not been implemented in practice, on what basis will a decision then be taken as to what part of the acquis communautaire must be implemented at all events, and what part, further to research and interpretation, could be subject to a transitional period, if necessary? We would welcome some clarification in this area. We should not be blinded by the percentage figures of community law transposed into national legislation.

One example is the social dialogue. Social dialogue is not so much a matter of establishing and recognising social partners, but mainly a problem of culture, of familiarity with employers’ delegates and employees’ representatives, of experience with providing information, consulting, debating and negotiating. What I am trying to say is that despite the transposition of a number of directives, these are not always carried out in reality.

Finally, enlargement is not just a game of words, because we cannot improve the human rights situation in Tibet just by translating the human rights declaration into Tibetan.

  Ettl (PSE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is not just transparency in the transitional stage which is needed for accession, Mrs Smet; flexibility and imagination are also needed. But one thing is certain: the remarkable efforts and absolute determination of the candidate countries to join the European Union must be incentive enough for us to get ready and able to enlarge. Thus, any measures which help to improve the process of rapprochement must be taken much more energetically and with better coordination management now in the pre-accession stage.

The Commission should not be left to fend for itself here. This comment is addressed to the Council and of course to us, the Member States, precisely because the rates of growth in the candidate countries are in fact far lower than those forecast in 1997, when we first debated this question. We should therefore be more conservative, Commissioner, in our future forecasts. Far better to err on the side of caution.

However, we should all be clear on one thing: continuous economic growth is the basis for social development. And, in turn, social development is needed if we are to stabilise the European social model and ensure that this model is not jeopardised.

However, we live in the real political world and are therefore bound to make provision for transitional arrangements in various political sectors in order to prevent negative frictional losses during the accession process. In doing so, we help both the candidate countries and the Member States themselves. For the job market and employment policy, that means that Member States bordering candidate countries need flexible, intelligent transitional arrangements in the first stage for the free movement of workers, especially border commuters, but only until such time as the difference in the standard of living in the candidate countries has improved to the point at which no migrationary movements or unrest are expected. Border regions need stability. That means that we must use the first stage following accession to jointly iron out social differences, especially if we are to be able to jointly build up confidence-inspiring relations in border regions.

Our opportunity lies in the fact that a successful socialisation process can prevent protectionism and nationalism. This is especially important in border regions, where several cultures clash.

  De Roo (Verts/ALE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the EU’s enlargement, to include ten Eastern European countries and the two Mediterranean countries Malta and Cyprus, is upon us. Negotiations involving the European Commission and the governments of those twelve countries are now under way. Three major stumbling blocks in these negotiations are the environment, agriculture and free access of employees of the new countries to the labour market of the old Fifteen.

With regard to the environmental aspects, I have drawn up a report on behalf of the Committee on the Environment. Only once before has Europe faced a similar dilemma. This was nearly ten years ago when the GDR became part of Germany.

The European Commission then spelled out that the internal market rules would apply as from day one of the GDR joining the EU. Very often, Europe’s environmental rules were subject to five-year transitional periods. In that situation, West Germany backed the former GDR financially on a massive scale, by no less than DM 150 billion annually. The ten new countries in Eastern Europe can only dream of having a rich sugar daddy such as that.

At present, the EU spends approximately EUR 500 million annually on the environment in the twelve new countries together. In order to meet all 200 environmental EU requirements, all Eastern European governments together need to spend another EUR 120 billion. In this light, it is understandable that they are applying for longer transitional periods of ten to fifteen years in order to accommodate those expensive environmental requirements. This means that the environment in Eastern Europe will not undergo any noticeable improvements until fifteen to twenty years from now. This is an unacceptable period of time.

It is logical that the Environment Ministers of the new countries will be putting the brakes on after their countries have joined the EU, whether their political persuasion is green or conservative. They will argue that they should first of all introduce the old EU environmental requirements before Europe adopts new environmental requirements or tightens existing ones. In order to solve this dilemma, the Committee on the Environment has proposed that the inexpensive cheap environmental requirements, such as environmental effects reporting, environmental information, animal welfare, the habitat and bird directives, should be effective from day one and that five-year transitional periods should be introduced for the expensive environmental requirements.

Environmental aid will need to double in order to help the new countries. If longer transitional periods prove necessary after all, the European Commission should table these requests to the Environmental Committee. The proposal which has attracted most controversy is that which stipulates that the old, soviet-type nuclear power stations have to be closed down from day one. In the negotiations held so far, it has been agreed to leave this type of extremely dangerous power station, such as that in Lithuania, in operation until 2009.

  Meijer (GUE/NGL), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. – (NL) Mr President, we might be inclined to think that when new countries join the EU, this automatically means that they will have to introduce more stringent rules to protect the environment and nature. This may be true in part, where the protection of the environment is concerned, but when it comes to protecting nature, it is a different matter.

The candidate countries want to experience quick economic growth, even if this is at the expense of previously stipulated nature protection policy. Of those candidate countries, it is mainly the Eastern European countries which have a rich tradition of identifying and protecting nature reserves. Accordingly, their decision in favour of rail transport, which takes up less space and emits less polluting substances than road transport, was a sound one. This head start has been put at risk over the past decade, mainly by the impoverishment of a large section of the population and by the wish for a new, car-oriented infrastructure. Some candidate countries would like financial support from the European Union for projects which will need to be abandoned once they join the Union. One example is the motorway in Bulgaria between Sofia and Thessaloniki, which cuts right through the vulnerable Kreshna gorge.

In some countries, the state of the natural world and of the environment is treated much like a state secret. This is why it is important for the citizens of those countries to become actively involved. The fact that non-governmental organisations for the protection of nature, the environment and animals are set up and developed, therefore, deserves our active support. Any transitional periods which postpone compliance with nature and environmental requirements could also freeze and obstruct the policy within the EU’s current Member States.

The next few years in Eastern Europe might well see the depopulation of rural villages and the large-scale purchase of agricultural land for mechanised production-intensive farms. In addition, new industrial sites are being built. And the transport of arable produce and stock breeding products over long distances will take off in a big way. This also applies to the inhuman transport of live animals to slaughterhouses.

Watercourses, hedges and stone walls, which are the traditional land dividers in the countryside, have already been partly destroyed by large-scale collectivisation, but the remainder thereof is now also at risk. The habitat directive and bird directive will not apply to the new Member States until the areas and animals to be protected have been listed in an appendix. This requires swift action so that these directives can enter into effect as from day one. We need to try to protect the countryside and the natural areas from any negative impact.

I welcome the broad approval from the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy and I hope for the same from Parliament as a whole.

  Bowis (PPE-DE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. – Mr President, when Pandora opened her box all the ills of mankind were released. Sometimes, in health terms, that is how it must have felt when the borders opened after the Iron Curtain was ripped apart. We had a two-way traffic of bad habits, many of them linked to health. Bad habits of course move fast and good practice moves more slowly afterwards. Many of those bad habits were linked to health – infectious diseases, some drug-resistant and some we thought we had seen the last of. And there was drug abuse, the horrors of Aids and syphilis and the problems of tobacco and alcoholism.

That would happen with or without enlargement. You cannot erect some new curtain, some cordon sanitaire, to protect west from east and east from west. Enlargement or no, it is in our mutual and collective interest that such problems are dealt with. It is my belief that enlargement can help that process.

Since the 1950s in Europe we have introduced standards on health and safety and over the years we have extended competences and standards from public health to health promotion, tobacco to blood safety, rights from mobility of doctors and patients to human rights and laws such as those for mental health. Pharmaceutical companies have been regulated, medicines for people and animals licensed, and a range of measures taken in research, dissemination of good practice, education and training. We are building a compendium of directives and regulations on matters wholly germane to health, such as pollution, emissions of radioactive and other dangerous substances, waste disposal, water, air, soil quality, food safety and novel foods and product liability. Now we are moving to a requirement for health impact assessments for all major legislation.

It is a long list and one that is often more honoured in the breach than in the observance by Member States. There is a message for EU governments and indeed for the Commission: for governments on compliance and the Commission on enforcement. More importantly there is a message for all of us who are interested in enlargement: we need to use all the channels available to us to support progress among the accession countries. That is why my report devotes a lot of its recommendations to the need to encourage the Phare programme to do more in the health field and to bring the countries into partnership now in the health action programmes and other areas. This includes bringing the European Investment Bank into the partnership.

  Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. – (NL) Mr President, with enlargement on the horizon, today’s debate forms an excellent opportunity to reiterate what the representatives of the European people regard as being the key points. I will focus on the area of consumer protection, as I am responsible for this particular section in the report and resolution.

When the European Union is enriched with many millions of Central and Eastern European citizens in a few years’ time, these countries will also add as many consumers. Although the acquis communautaire on consumer protection is relatively limited, consumer interests touch upon many other areas of policy. I therefore believe that the ultimate goal we should strive towards with regard to these countries, these new accession countries, is for the consumer to become a fully-fledged partner in the market economy, which will help bring about a sound social mainstream.

In order to reach that position, it is necessary for structured consumer organisations to be in place. These consumer organisations should be independent from national governments and should, in my view, be given more encouragement by the EU, but also by Member States and other NGOs.

There are three other areas which I would like to outline briefly. First of all, the area of telecommunications. Telecommunications and technological developments only surpassed by time itself should not be kept from the consumers of the enlargement countries. They should not lag behind. So I would call for a concerted effort in that field.

In fact, the same applies to the financial sector. In conjunction with industry, we should make extra efforts to set a sound form of organisation in motion. Mr Bowis echoed this very sentiment a moment ago: food aid and food safety are top priorities, not only for the public, but also because the internal market will soon need to take these products into consideration.

European unification has a great deal of potential with many opportunities which we must seize with both hands.

  Görlach (PSE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. – (DE) Mr President, honourable members, we all know that the agricultural sector is one of the most difficult sectors when it comes to enlargement. But there is no point in running scared; the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development takes the view that, if we estimate pre-accession aid correctly, we can do it. However, we must be clear about a number of things: structures in candidate countries vary considerably; in fact they could not vary more, which is why everything we do must be geared to the structures which currently exist in the individual Member States.

In the import-export sector, only Hungary has a positive balance of agricultural trade with the EU-15 at present. All the others import more agricultural goods into their countries than they export to the Union. That should give us food for thought, because so many of our farmers are afraid that, if we unify, we shall all go under because they are all fully paid-up agricultural economies. That is not the case.

The dangers lie elsewhere altogether. We in the Committee on Agriculture are firmly convinced that we should give these countries as much as we can from SAPARD resources and that we should give it to the right agencies. We need to restock structures in the positive sense, from abattoirs and dairies to processing. It makes no sense to import pig carcasses into the EU-15, create the added value here and then send the finished products back to the shops in these countries. That way they will never be able to stand on their own two feet. Everything we do to start this process now will save money later.

We must also clarify openly and honestly in discussions with these countries, that the common agricultural policy does not imply that the same payments have to be made everywhere from day one of membership, without checking if there are price losses in the individual product segments. That would be unfair to other structures in the EU-15. This can be reasonably regulated with reasonable phasing-in.

Then, of course, there is the problem of transitional arrangements. In the veterinary sector, in the phytosanitary sector, these countries need transitional periods of 10, 12 or even 15 years. Obviously that is out of the question. And because it is out of the question, it is important to do what we can now so that any unavoidable transitional arrangements needed can be as short as possible. It is better to introduce measures now than to start a long fight five minutes before accession.

All these purely agricultural matters should not obscure the fact that the following applies in the agricultural sector: Unless institutional reforms are properly regulated before the first candidate countries accede to the EU, there will be much that we are unable to regulate as we would like to. Of course, no-one will be surprised to learn that the Committee on Agriculture takes the view that the important area of the agricultural economy, which continues to account for almost half the budget – and this will basically remain the case –, should come under the codecision procedure. I have been instructed by our whole committee to express this view emphatically for the attention of all the agricultural ministers in the Member States, irrespective of which political hat they wear, because that is where those that are holding back and oppose this are to be found. The future Member States, our candidate countries, are joining a changing common agricultural policy and it would be a poor show of parliamentary democracy in practice if they continued to be excluded from the democratic process of shaping the future common agricultural policy in an area which is far more important to them than it is for most of the fully paid-up Fifteen. That is a most important point. And I have something else to say: we need to say this loud and clear to our member governments, especially our agricultural ministers, in the first phase of the Intergovernmental Conference.

We shall have a fight on our hands in some areas; we already have. It is a question of money. The assumption is that we did not want to grant them the same blessings of the common agricultural policy in euros. That is wrong. But justice does not mean that everything is measured with the same yardstick. It means that every candidate country will receive aid, according to its needs, which puts it on an equal footing with the Fifteen. And that does not mean that the same numerical sums must be paid per hectare, per tonne or per head. That is not necessary and would create injustices. On balance then, we have nothing to fear, but we must reform, otherwise accession will not work in the agricultural sector.

  Miguélez Ramos (PSE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism. – (ES) Mr President, enlargement is essential for the construction of a strong and united European continent. The economic and social cohesion laid down in the Treaty, the basis of the policy of European solidarity, must be one of the basic elements of that construction. However, we must not forget that, after enlargement and as a result of the low standard of living in the candidate countries, the average Community GDP is going to be reduced by at least 18%. The immediate consequence will be that more than 20 of the current Objective 1 regions will exceed the ceiling for receiving aid – 75% of the Community average – without having increased their income in real terms.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are not always able to clearly explain these pitfalls to our citizens nor propose clear and acceptable solutions.

Somebody said here today that enlargement is not a priority for 60% of the people consulted by the latest Eurobarometer. The report on the opinion of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism – of which I am rapporteur – has therefore had to play a dual role. Regional policy, the policy of European solidarity, is, of the common policies, the one which is most familiar to the citizens and one of the most valued. My report on the committee’s opinion therefore talks not only of what the candidate countries have to do but also of what the European Union has to do. The candidate countries must now embark on their own regional policy, develop the appropriate administrative structures, move ahead with the process of decentralisation and regionalisation, open up channels for participation to local and regional authorities and to social agents and create effective programmes of transnational and cross-border cooperation amongst themselves and with the Member States. They must do all of this because, after enlargement, we will not only have to combat the inequalities which those countries have inherited from the past, but also those which are being created at this very moment. This is not only a result of their internal policies, but above all because of our investments, European investments, or, if you prefer, Member States’ investments, which are accentuating the internal differences between the regions of those countries to the highest possible degree. That is why my report encourages them to create their own regional policy and move forward in this process.

My report is also bound to discuss the European Union and has to demonstrate that the European funds for regional development cannot continue to be granted on the basis of a simple distribution of money between regions or districts. If we do not establish priorities from a continent-wide perspective and straightaway, we will waste precious time, a few very important years in the task of constructing a strong and united continent. It is essential, ladies and gentlemen, to create a genuine European regional planning policy, of which the Structural Funds are a component, an element, but which gives rise to ambitious actions in favour of balanced and integrated development of the European area in its different dimensions. It is necessary to develop this European plan, link it clearly to regional policy and to the reform which is going to be implemented in 2006. We must begin to discuss this integrated and polycentric European development. The moment to move forward will perhaps arrive after the next Intergovernmental Conference. The European Parliament and its Committee on Regional Policy, which also has competence in the field of transport and the Trans-European Networks, is aware that it is necessary to coordinate the different Community sectoral policies in favour of a global policy of regional planning. The European Commission works on the basis of this same hypothesis and will put forward some of its proposals in the second triennial report on cohesion which it will present to Parliament in December. We know that this is perhaps not the ideal moment politically, but there is also a need to discuss the current financial perspectives negotiated at the Berlin European Council, which do not seem to us to be sufficient to confront the challenges of the regional policy and the economic and social cohesion of an enlarged European Union.

Ladies and gentlemen, cohesion and European citizenship are one and the same thing. Helmut Schmidt and Valéry Giscard d'Estaing put it another way: the only way we can create realistic and viable integration is through political will and socio-economic conditions which are almost identical.

  Rack (PPE-DE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism. – (DE) Mr President, allow me to start with a preliminary comment, not on the subject of Austria, but on another political matter. The French Presidency changed its political presence here in the House prior to the reports on the two candidate countries of Cyprus and Malta. I trust that this is not an indication of how the grande nation intends to treat small partners; it would be the wrong signal. But now to the right signals.

Elmar Brok rightly started his intervention by saying that we all stand to benefit from enlargement, especially those of us on this side of the current external borders. Commissioner Verheugen, you rightly stressed that it was no longer a question of if, but of how and when enlargement will take place. But it is precisely with the “how” and “when” that we need to ensure that enlargement is prepared carefully and implemented seriously, in order to guarantee its success.

The Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism has tried, within its remit, to take account of two sub-sectors which Mr Brok addressed and which must be borne in mind if enlargement is to be a success. We have just heard something about the “carrot” in the regional policy and promotion sector. If that is our classification, then transport and tourism come in the “stick” category, because in this sector we have a huge amount of acquis and it will be a question – and I shall come back to this – of actually applying this acquis.

But first a reminder that transport infrastructure will be instrumental to the success of enlargement. A huge internal market with over 500 million European consumers needs transport routes if it is to function. Some of the infrastructure is already in place, at least in one half of the future Union. Here we have developed and are in the process of improving the basic infrastructure needed in the form of TEN. We must make similar arrangements and, more importantly, we must forge connections with central and eastern Europe. The TINA report covers these prospects. The financial perspectives make provision for some of the funds. Whether or not they will suffice remains to be seen; in any event a sound basis has been laid for the candidate countries with PHARE, ISPA and other funding programmes.

But there must also be a sound basis and it is particularly important for the infrastructure to be created in the candidate countries, in order to ensure that acceptance of the Community acquis is not and does not just remain acceptance on paper. The committee has basically endeavoured in the individual transport strategies to highlight the most important aspects. There are two very important aspects in connection with road and rail transport which deserve special mention here: as regards road transport, which has already been liberalised and opened up to an extensive degree, care must be taken to ensure on accession that the provisions of Community employment, social, fiscal and tax legislation are actually applied in each Member State because, if they are not, this will lead to distortions of the market in the European Union and in the candidate countries which, where possible, we shall then have to spend a great deal of money rectifying.

Similar early action is needed and will be needed in order to join the western and eastern European railway network and render them compatible. We must ensure that the present rail infrastructure in central and eastern Europe is not replaced by road transport, resulting in a great deal of effort at a later date in an attempt to put things right.

Internal waterway transport will be important for environmental reasons, because we must get heavy freight off the roads and, if it cannot be carried by rail, then we must use waterways. Once Malta and Cyprus join, the Union will have the biggest merchant fleet in the world. It is important that it should not just become a flag of convenience and that all measures prescribed in the acquis are taken to ensure that safety is writ large. We do not want to live through another accident like the Erika.

There is a series of further points which the Regional Committee has mentioned in its report. I hope that the candidate countries and we too will take them to heart.

  Dybkjær (ELDR), draftsperson of the opinion of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities. – (DA) Mr President, I would join the chorus of those who say that the forthcoming enlargement is now the main task of the EU. If this does not succeed, then nor shall we. We could make ourselves comfortable in our little club, but its whole raison d’être would then be lost, and we should not be able to secure the large perspectives of peace, freedom and stability. Nor shall we succeed, however, if we do not appreciate that enlargement should, first and foremost, be for the benefit not only of a few people but of all people in the candidate countries, or in any case the majority of them. And with all due respect for what is being said and written in Parliament, a broad democratic base is something we do not have. I therefore also listened very carefully to Commissioner Verheugen’s words about ‘selling’ the EU to the candidate countries, for the majority of Central and Eastern European countries – if not all of them – have, of course, said that they want to hold referenda, or in any case have not said that they do not, and I personally think that this is a good idea. One should be clear, however, that there is undeniably a danger of people voting ‘no’.

So what were the problems Mr Verheugen thought were of concern to citizens? He mentioned migration, competition, social dumping, prices etc.. All obviously real concerns, but I think there is one thing which overshadows all others, that of how they can survive as countries, nations and States. Now, I am, admittedly, talking partly against the background of the fact that I come from a small country which has just voted ‘no’ in a referendum. This ‘no’ will now be analysed carefully in the days to come. There is no doubt at all that right-wing forces have been involved. We have also seen who has paid for the advertisements. Egoism and, especially, populism have also played their part. Nor, certainly, has the falling rate of the euro helped things in the right direction. Even though there are, of course, many of us who are aware of the historical basis for the euro and of what the whole thing is about, it has not been enough to convince people. But having said all that, it is questions about how we can survive as a State that have occupied people’s minds. How is one to get around the fact that it is really politicians in the big countries such as Germany and France who make the decisions? I think it is incredibly important that we bear this factor in mind when negotiating with the candidate countries. I can fully guarantee you that, in those countries, the spectre of union is very easy to conjure up. They have in fact experienced it at first hand for a very long time.

Another lesson from Denmark, which is directly relevant to the Committee on whose behalf I am speaking, is that everything suggests that there are far more women than men who have voted ‘no’. If we are not to risk a repeat performance in the candidate countries, it is crucial that we be clear about the fact that enlargement should not be of benefit only to men but also be of benefit to women. I believe that, up until now, all objective investigations have shown that the transition to a market economy has had a greater impact upon women than upon men. A great deal of pressure has been placed upon traditional social values in the former planned economies of Central and Eastern Europe. The rapid restructuring of the old State-run industries which is at present taking place has of course resulted in serious unemployment for both men and women, at the same time as the private sector has still not managed to fill the vacuum. And, as I say, the figures suggest that there are a great many women who have become unemployed. Even in countries such as Lithuania, where there is an economic upturn, it is not women, but men, who get to fill the jobs in the private sector.

For one reason or another, it is evidently thought that men are the ones who really possess the entrepreneur gene. We therefore need to realise that women are much more vulnerable in this process of readjustment and therefore much more vulnerable in relation to the Union project as a whole than we have indicated up until now. I would strongly urge the Commission to be alert to this in all its negotiations with the candidate countries. If we do not secure jobs for women, if we do not ensure that the non-governmental organisations are there to talk about the Union project, then we can forget all about obtaining a democratic endorsement. We shall not succeed. It is therefore also important, of course, that, in connection with enlargement, we ensure that the legislation on equality is implemented sensibly so that the enlargement we are all hoping for – and I would here point out that one of the countries in which there is most support for enlargement is in fact Denmark – can also in actual fact take place. This cannot, however, happen by itself, and I would very much urge that attention be given to the position of women.

  Oostlander (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, the aim of the Brok report, as with other reports on this subject, is to get the message across that the candidates are welcome, although we do not hide the fact that the groundwork leading up to their joining is a momentous task. This is why the Group of the European People’s Party and European Democrats is of the opinion that all amendments and viewpoints which implicitly tighten criteria and raise barriers to accession should be scrapped or voted against. This is how we came to go through the text, and attempted to cut down on certain items in the process.

Our message to the accession candidates is the following: do not get overwhelmed by the number of reports and dossiers before us. All we have done is to make an attempt to give you sound advice as best we could, with the best of intentions, and in many cases we have succeeded in doing just that.

Within the Union institutions, the views on enlargement continue to be positive and you must therefore contradict every ambassador from your countries who believes otherwise. The Commission has cherry-picked its officials for the task in hand and Parliament remains passionate about this project, which is the best proof that the political climate has not been so favourable for a century.

I have already warned colleagues in Central Europe about this; when the tone sobers down, then this is only proof that we are moving from the honeymoon period into a life of domestic normality within Europe. It is all starting to become very real, and this requires both negotiations on specific practical matters as well as level-headedness.

The PPE-DE does not want to take on the responsibility for pacing accession from the candidates because we cannot set any dates in this respect. People, especially from the relevant countries, often ask about accession dates because they would so much like to share some of the responsibility for these dates. We should not do this as this is outside our remit. We can at best promise accession scenarios and, in fact, we must draft these anyway in order to clearly mark the path to the Union.

We can also pledge to make every effort to make accession or ratification before 2004 possible, so that at the 2004 elections, some candidates will be seen to take part in these Parliamentary elections.

Needless to say, all of this will also require thorough institutional reform – and this by 2003. We must keep this date in mind for our own sakes. The President-in-Office of the Council replied that this reform cannot, of course, take place without involving the citizens. Thinking along constitutional lines, I thought he was validating the right of Parliament to monitor these reforms democratically. After all, we have been given the citizens’ mandate to do this. But I am not sure whether the Minister was thinking along such constitutional lines.

Reform is not the only change we need, of course. We want an effective communication policy which enables the citizens in the European Union and in the accession countries to take part in the political debate in a meaningful manner. Policy in this respect is still not sufficiently in tune with democratic standards. There are now forces in the Member States, both present and future, which want to exploit existing uncertainties. We all know it: to play on people’s fears is an electorally useful exercise and parties which have no political goals other than gathering seats, like to indulge in manipulating people’s feelings of uncertainty. This is inexcusable.

Mr Burenstam Linder, a former Swedish colleague of mine who was an expert in this field, explained to me that any enlargement of the European Union, whenever it took place, has always resulted in an excellent cost-benefit analysis on the part of the new participants and those already in the Union. It makes little sense to start to doubt in public the value, including the direct value at a material level, of this enlargement.

Unfortunately, there are too many parties at the moment which have shed their ideological feathers and, as a result, display too little ambition and too much materialism. President Havel from the Czech Republic recently mentioned in his speech to the IMF the lack of spirituality in our culture, the lack of standards and goals which transcend the pursuit of immediate gain.

We can gauge our Parliament’s depth and spiritual engagement by the way it handles enlargement. The tasks facing us in this debate are so great that they spell out the importance of political views. Do we react as overfed Westerners who only care about our own fast-growing prosperity and certainties or do we take a wider view? A wider view of the kind that was held at the start of European integration by its pioneers.

Well, Mr President, let us spread the word that it is precisely these new opportunities arising from enlargement, to include former dictatorships and countries under totalitarian regimes, which can help us broaden our horizons. I hope our debate will give the new candidate states a shot in the arm.

  Sakellariou (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I only have two minutes and must dispense with references to honeymoons. Nonetheless, I should like to thank the general rapporteur, Elmar Brok, who is also chairman of the committee, for the farsightedness and astonishing sensitivity with which he has conducted the debate, including and most importantly, in committee. As a result, we can now take up a coherent position for the European Parliament which is supported by all political groups.

After such a comprehensive debate, I should just like to address and highlight two questions, which now have no or the wrong meaning in the public eye. The first is the question of the reforms needed in the European Union itself. As a result of the Intergovernmental Conference, the conditions needed in order for the European Union to be able to enlarge will be in place. All too often we stand with raised finger pointing in the direction of the candidates and lecture them on their obligations, when what we should do is point in our own direction and understand once and for all that, when it comes to fulfilling obligations, our turn comes well before theirs.

The second point concerns the setting of dates. I am resolutely in favour of setting one date, i.e. the date by which the European Union will have completed its reforms and will therefore be ready to receive new members. To set a total of a further twelve dates would, in my view, be irresponsible, for the reasons which numerous speakers have cited here today, and would increase the candidates’ frustration rather than motivating them.

  Haarder (ELDR). – (DA) Mr President, those of us in the Liberal Group have recently been receiving visits from future MEPs from the candidate countries and, let me tell you, they are impatient. They see support for this massive peace project dwindling, both in the current Member States and in their own countries. We should remember that it is not only for their sake that we should enlarge the Union. It is, to a large degree, also for our own sake. We are so preoccupied with what we should demand of them and with what we can teach them. We should perhaps concern ourselves a little more with what they can rightly demand of us and with what they can teach us. They are proud of their new-won freedom and democracy and their impressive economic growth, and remember that it was not we who obtained freedom for them. They did that for themselves 11 years ago when they amazed all the diplomats and observers by seizing the opportunity to break the Communist yoke and, in that way, also paved the way for German reunification. We believe we must teach them about democracy, but do you not think that countries which have experienced dictatorship know better than we do what is important in democracy? What we need, of course, is for the new Member States from the East to help us keep to what is the purpose of it all, namely a Union of free and sovereign Member States in which the freedom of the people and the nations is given pride of place. They can perhaps teach us to use the proximity principle somewhat better. If there are rules which are unsuited to the new countries, then it is perhaps the rules which should be adapted and not the new countries which should adjust. If there is a need for long transitional arrangements on certain points, then let us have long transitional arrangements. If there is a need to postpone the free right to acquire land and property for family use, then let us do that. The most important thing is to get the new countries around the table with us, so that they can be involved in shaping Europe’s future. That is important not only for them but also for ourselves.

  Schroedter (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, we must have a clear timetable for enlargement post-Nice. The group of the Greens/European Free Alliance is calling for negotiations with the first group of countries to be completed by the end of 2002, so that the first accessions can take place before the next European elections in 2004. I must say, in all honesty, that I am rather astonished, Mr Verheugen. Was it not your suggestion to set clear timetables with interim and target dates after Nice on the basis of the progress reports, in order to motivate rather than delay reforms? We know ourselves from monetary union how important that was.

There is another reason. Common environmental standards and social rules can only be implemented if these countries are full members. We know that from Temelin. As far as I am concerned, it is out of the question to have to use additional resources from category 8 from 2002 as part of the pre-accession strategy here.

Mr Verheugen, in my view it is pie in the sky to believe that the liberalisation of trade alone can modernise agricultural production and strengthen rural development. In truth, it needs far more measures, which should be much more financially focussed and improved under the SAPARD regulation.

  Brie (GUE/NGL). – (DE) Mr President, we all know, to borrow a phrase from Mr Brok’s report, that accession will mean a major shock to economic, social, political and cultural development in the countries in question and just how deeply that shock will reverberate. I would gladly discuss the specifics of the Council’s enlargement policy but that would presuppose that there is an openly and clearly-defined policy and if reference was made today to the huge significance of Gorbachev’s glasnost for subsequent German reunification, then we too should demand that glasnost be practised in the Council and in connection with enlargement eastwards.

I am not surprised, under present circumstances, that enlargement has hardly penetrated the consciousness of our citizens or that it is increasingly accompanied by worry and suspicion, whereas today’s debate and all thirteen reports demonstrate the common commitment of large sections of the European Parliament to enlargement to the east and to enlargement configured in a responsible, forward-looking manner. As far as I am concerned, three criteria are more important in relation to all the problems than the not insignificant criticism which I have on individual points.

First, the democratic wish of the countries and people in question must be respected after their accession to the EU. It exists so far, but will possibly be jeopardised by a bureaucratic lack of transparency and the obvious, but not public resistance of certain governments. It is therefore urgent and imperative not to allow institutional reform of the EU or enlargement to be postponed. I also call for individual countries to be given possible target dates.

Secondly, I am one of those who are disquieted by current neo-liberal trends in the EU. The various reports reflect this mainstream attitude. Nonetheless, the truly historic opportunity of enlargement must be defended for the sake of stability and security and the chance to develop cultural diversity and configure a new large economic area in Europe.

Thirdly, acceptance of enlargement and its positive prospects for the individual countries and for the EU as a whole basically depend – and Denmark demonstrated this – on dismantling the social and democratic deficits of European policy. We cannot therefore just make demands on the candidate countries. Enlargement is basically a challenge for the EU itself to reform and an opportunity to steer the social, employment policy and democratic aspects of European integration as a whole. Provided that the reports, especially Mr Brok’s overall report are not spoilt on these points during tomorrow’s vote, I shall vote in favour of them all.

(Applause)

  Gollnisch (TDI). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are gathered here today to discuss the applications for membership of the European Union from twelve European countries: ten in Eastern Europe and two from the Mediterranean, Malta and Cyprus.

These countries see the present European Union as a guarantee of future prosperity. Some of them, a short while ago oppressed by Communism and subjugated by the Soviet empire, or still divided by military occupation like Cyprus, also see it as a guarantee of independence and security. Well, quite frankly: they are wrong. They are wrong because prosperity is not generated by the European Union and its 80 000 pages of directives and regulations. For where are the millions of jobs promised by the Maastricht Treaty?

Prosperity is created by restoring economic freedoms and nothing else. Nor is freedom and security created by the European Union – as Austria, on the one hand, and the Balkans, on the other, know full well – because the European Union is, alas, totally subservient to the United States Government and the nations which have just recovered their sovereignty are soon going to realise that, tomorrow, they will be asked to renounce it in the name of subservience to the supposed world order.

Today, then, to these European nations, where the right wing have not ceased to defend national freedoms at a time when almost every other political persuasion put up with their enslavement, we are tempted to shout a warning, “Do not enter this house which is already suffocating us. Now that you have just emerged from your former prison, do not rush to enter a new one. Do not make an irreparable error. Mr Verheugen told you on behalf of the Commission that there is no going back. He also told you that expressing a point of view other than his was to indulge in populism. Populism is how technocrats choose to denigrate the will of the people when it is expressed in a direction which does not suit them. Remember, then, to safeguard the expression of the will of your peoples, now that they are free at last, since tomorrow they may, like the Danes, wish to free themselves of this yoke.”

If, however, the candidate countries were to persist in their intended course, we would confine our reservations to this brotherly warning. We should certainly not wish to give some false impression that we were in some way hostile to these nations that belong to our family, these nations that are European in terms of their peoples, languages and geography, that are Christian by faith and Western by civilisation, and, we hope, immune to all modern forms of totalitarianism, including those that are now approaching, after decades of terrible suffering.

So, if you really do want to, then come on in! But hold your heads up high and do not let yourselves be impressed by the speeches on corruption which the Commission representative has just addressed to you, for there is not one European Union Member State that is in a position to preach to you. Do not let them inspect your human rights record at a time when the Council Presidency aims to remove the Member of the European Parliament, Jean-Marie Le Pen, from office after an unfair procedure. Either refuse to enter or enter with your head held high, unabashed, and thereby become our companions in misfortune.

  Saint-Josse (EDD). – (FR) Mr President, yesterday six States, today fifteen and tomorrow twenty-eight, but what sort of a Europe are we building? Have we managed to establish the Europe of diversities which the peoples of our countries are hoping and praying for? This is more than a question; it is a real challenge, and it is up to us to accept it.

Reducing enlargement to the adoption of the acquis as we are currently doing, means indulging in the highly technocratic exercise of making the candidate states take on thousands of Community regulations, while being incapable of implementing them ourselves. The increasingly strong reservations expressed by our peoples and Denmark’s recent rejection of the euro serve to remind us of that. Now that we are engaged in reviewing the Treaties, some States are already calling for a new reform. Once again, this constant groping around shows either that we do not know where we are going or that we know only too well and that it is too shameful to mention. It would be just as irresponsible to wish to go further.

Quite rightly, the Commission has stressed the risk of quality and speed being incompatible. I think specifically that in going too quickly to six then to fifteen we have displayed our inability to build a Europe which respects the disparities between its initial members. Is it reasonable to move ahead in the same manner? I do not think so, and we therefore refuse, today, to follow you down this road which, in the long term, will do nothing but smother the hope of a lasting peace on the continent of Europe. Tomorrow will tell.

  President. – Ladies and gentlemen, we shall now stop for a break and something to eat and shall resume at 9 o’clock. I trust that there will be a full turnout!

(The sitting was suspended at 7.05 p.m. and resumed at 9.00 p.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: MR DAVID MARTIN
Vice-President