Index 
 Previous 
 Next 
 Full text 
Verbatim report of proceedings
Tuesday, 16 May 2006 - Strasbourg OJ edition

14. Progress report on the accession of Bulgaria and Romania (debate)
PV
MPphoto
 
 

  President. The next item on the agenda is the Commission’s statement on the report on progress made by Bulgaria and Romania in the enlargement process.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. Mr President, I am delighted to have the opportunity to present to you today the results of our assessment of Bulgaria’s and Romania’s preparations for accession and I look forward to discussing this with you.

I would like to thank Parliament, in particular its Committee on Foreign Affairs, the chairman Mr Brok and the rapporteurs Mr Van Orden and Mr Moscovici for their contribution to this important exercise. I very much appreciate the concerted spirit of our frequent discussions on this subject. As you know, the decision that the Commission has taken today is the result of an extensive process of review and dialogue with all the major stakeholders. The starting point of our approach is that the European Union must honour existing commitments. At the same time, we need to be rigorous as regards the criteria to be met by acceding countries.

I should like to make a few brief remarks before, with your permission, giving the floor to Mr Rehn, who will comment in more detail on the Commission’s findings in the monitoring report.

Since October, the Governments of Bulgaria and Romania have worked extremely hard to deliver on their outstanding commitments. They have continued to make progress in their preparation for membership. Let us give credit where it is due. However, there are still some important issues which need to be addressed. I would highlight, in particular, the need for further progress in the area of justice and home affairs. The Commission considers that Romania and Bulgaria should be ready for membership by 1 January 2007, provided that they address a number of outstanding issues in the course of the next month.

Let me first turn to the situation in judicial reforms and the fight against corruption. We expect any acceding country to have in place a fully functioning judicial system equipped to fight corruption and organised crime. This is of paramount importance, since it underpins the functioning of the whole society and the economy. Both countries have shown determination to undertake the necessary remaining reforms and our reports give them full credit for the results already achieved. Bulgaria still needs to demonstrate clear evidence of results in the fight against corruption, in particular high-level corruption, notably in terms of investigations and subsequent judicial proceedings. It also needs to further reform the judiciary and remove any ambiguity regarding its independence. We also expect Bulgaria to step up efforts on the investigation of organised crime networks.

Romania needs to continue its efforts and demonstrate further results in the fight against corruption, notably in terms of further investigations and subsequent judicial proceedings. It needs to consolidate the implementation of the ongoing judicial reforms.

Turning to the level of alignment of Bulgaria and Romania with the acquis communautaire, we have registered further progress. However, we still have serious concerns about a few sectors: agriculture and food safety, justice and home affairs and public finance. Any acceding country needs to be in a position to implement the European Union policies properly upon accession. The rules of the club must be respected. We expect Bulgaria and Romania to take immediate corrective action in those problematic sectors.

No later than early October, we will review the situation with those outstanding issues. On that basis, the Commission will consider whether it is still possible to adhere to the accession date of 1 January 2007. It is practicable for the two countries to be ready in 2007, but they must take decisive action.

At the same time, the European Union needs to give a clear signal that it stands ready to honour its commitments. That is crucial, in order to keep up the momentum. Practical preparations for accession need to continue. I count on the support of all governments and parliaments that still need to complete their procedures to ratify the accession treaty.

Our approach is based on strict conditionality and adherence to undertakings. That approach has allowed us to gain strength and confidence from each enlargement. Like the previous enlargements, especially that in 2004, the forthcoming enlargement will be a success.

Enlargement has always been Europe’s response to strategic challenges and history has shown that this response has been the proper one. Time and again, it has been accompanied by a dynamism that has given the enlarged Europe a greater capacity to make its mark in the world.

In the situation in which we find ourselves today, it is more important than ever to preserve the spirit of openness and ambition that has always inspired us to press ahead with the construction of Europe. That is precisely why Commissioner Rehn and I have decided to go to Bucharest today and Sofia tomorrow to explain these issues and give the two countries a clear message of encouragement.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. Mr President, on 1 May we celebrated the second anniversary of the latest enlargement. Looking at the past two years, we have every reason to be satisfied and proud, even though at the time there was no lack of doomsday scenarios. Yet the Cassandras have been proven wrong.

We can succeed equally well in the cases of Bulgaria and Romania. Both countries are working hard to tackle the remaining shortcomings to fully meet the criteria of accession.

The Commission’s duty is to assess the progress made by the two countries to see if they are truly ready for accession. It is our goal to welcome Bulgaria and Romania as members in 2007 and it is our duty, as the guardian of the Treaties, to ensure that once they join they really meet the conditions. Hence, when we last met in late April, I promised you a carefully calibrated decision that maintains the momentum of reforms up to and beyond accession. Now you have such a decision: Bulgaria and Romania may join in January 2007 on condition that they show the necessary resolve, mentality and results in tackling the outstanding shortcomings. By early October, we will report on their progress and consider whether the date can be maintained.

Bulgaria and Romania have indeed undergone a monitoring process that is unprecedented in its scope and intensity. Concerning the political criteria, while much has been achieved, there is still room for further progress. It is necessary effectively to implement the reform of the judiciary and to reinforce the fight against corruption, particularly at high level.

Bulgaria needs seriously to intensify its efforts to crack down on organised crime and corruption. It also needs to demonstrate clear evidence of results in the fight against corruption, in terms of investigations and judicial proceedings.

Building on the progress made so far, Romania needs to continue its efforts and show further results in the fight against corruption.

In the area of human rights and the rights of minorities, further efforts are needed by both Bulgaria and Romania.

On the economic criteria, the transformation of the two countries is a remarkable success that is a win-win situation for everybody in Europe. Both countries have registered robust growth in the last years, creating a zone of much-needed economic dynamism at our south-eastern corner.

As to the acquis, our legal order, significant progress has been achieved and most of the areas are unproblematic, provided that the current pace of preparations is maintained. However, in some areas the preparations require increased efforts, and we also have certain issues of serious concern. Unless the countries take immediate and decisive corrective action, they will not be ready in these areas of serious concern at the envisaged date of accession.

Since October last year, the areas of serious concern have been brought down from 16 to 6 in Bulgaria and from 14 to 4 in Romania. They still include certain agricultural, food safety and veterinary issues, as well as the control and management of EU funds. Should these serious concerns persist, we would not hesitate to use all our remedial tools. Our report specifies the safeguards and other protective measures under the existing legislation that we have at our disposal. These safeguards could be invoked if certain limited problems persist at accession in the areas, for instance, of the internal market and justice and home affairs, where we can also establish a monitoring mechanism based on the Accession Treaty.

On the use of EU money, the acquis will require a suspension of payments in case of serious problems. In agriculture, we even propose novel, stricter measures, based on the Accession Treaty That sends a strong signal that we are careful with our money.

I trust that today’s carefully calibrated decision and its rigour will convince the national parliaments that have not yet ratified the Accession Treaty to do so. The Treaty itself includes the conditions, safeguards and monitoring mechanisms that ensure the countries can join only once they are ready, and that once they have joined, they must respect their obligations as members.

Let me express our appreciation for the support of the European Parliament for the accession process of Bulgaria and Romania. As agreed between President Barroso and President Borrell last year, we have listened carefully to your views before presenting our position on whether or not to postpone the accessions. I am sure this constructive, transparent and rigorous approach will bring the best results for Bulgaria and Romania, and for Europe.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Hans-Gert Poettering, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by assuring the Commission of how much I appreciate the presence of its President and, of course, of the responsible Commissioner, when such an important issue is being debated. The chairmen of the Groups are here, as are the Members of this House – there could be more of them, but today’s turnout is more or less acceptable. I cannot fail to observe, though, that there is nobody here to represent the Council of Ministers, any more than there was when the President of the Palestinian Authority was speaking, and I do not think it is acceptable that the Council should fail to be represented at such an important debate.

(Applause)

I would encourage you, Mr President – and this has to do not only with the presidency, and it is not only they whom I am addressing, for this is also a matter for the General Secretariat of the Council – to use your influence on the Council to get them to actually be present for such important debates. You, Mr President, will have our support if you press this point home as clearly as possible to the Council, to its General Secretariat, and also to the presidency.

Moving on to the matter in hand, Bulgaria and Romania are on their way into the European Union. We look forward to their arrival, and I would just like to say something by way of appreciation. The impression has been given in many quarters that we – the existing European Union of 25 States – are the ones from whom they have to learn. What a colossal effort it must have involved for Romania and Bulgaria to undo the damage done by 45 years of mismanagement under Communist dictatorship in order to become democratic states under the rule of law; we should, for once, acknowledge what a long road these countries have had to travel.

(Applause)

Whilst we often – and often quite rightly – criticise the administration we have at every level in the European Union and in our own Member States, I would like say what a great benefit it is that the systems of administration we have in the European Union and in our Member States are founded upon law, so that it is possible, through the justice system, to contest any administrative measure or any action by an official. Nothing of the sort exists in the former Communist countries, and that is something they will have to develop. It is for that reason that it is so important that we should develop a legal system with the character of a state under the rule of law, and that will demand an enormous effort.

To the governments, the parliaments and the people – not least in Bulgaria and Romania – I have to say that they should not take our debate and our concerns about the lack of progress as an indication of our desire to teach them a lesson; on the contrary, we want to work together to make the accession of Romania and Bulgaria a success for us all – for the two countries themselves and for the European Union as a whole.

While we are not questioning the data, I do think that you, Mr Barroso and Mr Rehn, are well advised to say that we want to encourage both countries to address the remaining deficits by way of legislation and practical implementation in such a way – although they will be unable to get everything out of the way in the next few months – that we can hope, in the autumn, to be able to tell them, with a good conscience, that they will be welcome on 1 January 2007. That is why your decision – which we endorse – is an astute one and one that gives these two countries the encouragement to continue down the road on which they have set foot.

Today, everything fits together. It also has to be pointed out that the people of the present European Union have their worries about this too; they have not yet quite got used to our now being a community of twenty-five members. Ten countries joined us on 1 May 2004. We have to take a positive line on this with our citizens and say that having Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia and of course Malta and Cyprus too, joining us was a massive success, for the rule of law, democracy and the social market economy have prevailed in these countries, and that helps to keep the whole European continent stable. That is what we need to tell our people, rather than always focusing only on the criticisms and challenges, and it is on this basis that we still have a lot of work to do in order to enhance approval of the European Union.

Over the past few months, this House – and I think, even though we must always be capable of criticising ourselves, we can take a bit of pride in this – has achieved a great deal, in the shape of the great compromise on the services directive, followed by the adoption of the Financial Perspective, to which we had managed to make significant improvements, but there is still more to be done, in that, where the REACH chemicals legislation is concerned, we must succeed in achieving a balance between economic and environmental considerations.

Today, we discussed with Commissioner Wallström – who spoke on behalf of the whole Commission and indeed of its President – the most important matter for concern, second only to the improvement of the European Union’s political and psychological environment, which is that we should not allow there to be any doubt about the fact that the majority in the European Parliament wants the constitutional treaty to become a reality, and it wants that because we need the constitution if the European Union is to have ground rules for decisions and common values to bind us together.

I hope that the Commission will take all that into consideration. Mr Barroso, I think it a good thing that you should have come to your decision today and then, immediately, justified it to the European Parliament. Tomorrow, you travel to Romania and Bulgaria. I hope that you have a good journey and that we can all share in a good European future.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Martin Schulz, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, am glad that the President of the Commission has joined us today, for his presence here underlines the importance of the debate, and the reason why it underlines the importance of the debate is that what we are debating is important. The dramatic nature of the decision that we will have to take, that the Council will have to take, and that you have yet to take, not only in terms of its internal effect, but also of its effect on the two countries we are discussing is not to be underestimated.

We in the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, the social democrats in this House, stand by the wish that we have expressed, namely that, if there are no major obstacles, then 1 January 2007 should be the accession date for Bulgaria and Romania. That was, and still remains, our position, and I note that the President was very precise in the way he expressed it in his speech, saying that the Commission was working on the basis that the two countries should be ready for accession to the EU on 1 January 2007. Now you, Mr Rehn, and you, Mr Barroso, have chosen to express yourselves in forms of words that indicate the presence of deficits – deficits that you have described superficially rather than naming them one by one. If you are now, after seven years, going to travel to Sofia and Bucharest, then I have some good advice to give you: it is that, when you get there, you should use more precise language when talking to the governments there about what you have told this House, describing exactly where the deficits are to be found, and saying precisely what you expect by way of improvements, for that is the only way in which the governments there will have a chance of doing what they have already been doing, namely working hard to ensure that all the criteria expected and demanded of them are actually met. To do so is only fair, for, as you yourself – both the President and the Commissioner – have said, these governments are doing a great deal. The process of transformation that these countries have undergone – and this is where I agree with Mr Poettering – has been going on for all of one and a half decades and has made great demands on people. Now, in the final stage, when we need to take account of the hopes of the people of Bulgaria and Romania, of their hope that they will be able to join the European Union, this is a time when great precision is of the essence.

We can accept what you – Mr Barroso and Commissioner Rehn – have said, but by saying it, you are shouldering a great responsibility, and so I want to spell out in no uncertain terms what that responsibility is. You will be telling the governments in Sofia and Bucharest which criteria have yet to be met. You will be describing what is to be demanded of them, and you have talked to us in terms of an October date. What that means, then, is that you, in October, will have to tell the Council and the European Parliament in very precise terms whether or not you think these things are as they should be, and, if they are not, then by the logic of your own argument the decision ought to be different from what you, today, expect. You are thereby taking upon yourself a great responsibility, and I want, today, to again impress upon you what that responsibility is. It is for that reason that today’s debate is a very weighty one and one to be taken seriously.

Bulgaria and Romania are indeed to become Member States of the European Union, and we social democrats would like them to accede on 1 January 2007. We are well aware of the improvements that have yet to be made. We are confident that these countries can make them, so that the deadline can be met. We take it as read that you will keep a watchful eye on them as they do so.

There is, though, one thing I would like to add: it is that this is not just about accession, any more than it is just about the treaties on the basis of which they will accede. We also need to consider why this accession is so important in the historical context. These two countries, constituting the Black Sea Region, have made enormous advances. Quite apart from the things you so rightly criticise, both Romania and Bulgaria have stabilised to an enormous degree, and this stability on the borders of the European Union is of great significance, for this region is also bordered by others that are also our neighbours and which are far from being as stable as we would wish them to be. It follows that we have a vested interest in these countries achieving stability – economic, social, political and cultural stability – as Member States of the European Union, and so, the sooner they meet the criteria, the sooner they will be ready for accession, and the better it will be for all concerned – not only for the countries in question, but also for the European Union.

The social democrats in the European Parliament have taken note of what the Commission has proposed; although we regard its approach as acceptable, we would advise you to be more precise in Bucharest and Sofia than you have been today. What we would like to see is both countries fulfilling the criteria in such a way that they will be able, on 1 January 2007, to become Members of our Union.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Graham Watson, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I would like to pay tribute to Commissioner Rehn for his balanced and thorough assessment and his competent handling of this dossier. I also commend Anca Boagiu and Meglena Kuneva and their predecessors as Ministers for EU Integration for their unstinting hard work.

The author Mark Twain observed, ‘We can change the world or ourselves, but the latter is more difficult’. Tearing down the Berlin Wall was the easy part. Building a new democratic culture takes much longer. But the bricks of effort and the mortar of persistence are working. The decision to proceed in 2007, with appropriate provisos, is the right one. The Commission should not, in my group’s view, revisit its decision in the autumn, except in the gravest of circumstances.

We are concerned that Romania and Bulgaria should be judged no more or less harshly than previous newcomers. Our monitoring must be in line with current treaty provisions and legislation in force. We therefore take very seriously the Commission’s expression of serious concern about continuing corruption and failure of the rule of law – areas which need urgent further action. Ill treatment of Romany people, too, continues to offend, which is why the Decade of Roma Inclusion launched by six heads of state and government is so important.

In many other areas the Commission identifies failings. These must be put right without delay. But accession cannot be an examination in which candidates fail. For failure would be at least as much a failure of the Union as of the candidate states. What is most important to the health of a society is the direction in which its face is set. Bulgaria and Romania are looking and moving in the right direction. Can that be said of all current Member States? Imagine, colleagues, that last autumn Romania’s Interior Minister had proposed detention of suspects for three months without charge or that the Bulgarian Prime Minister had used the secret services to spy on his colleagues. There would have been outrage.

My group has always been wary of those who would pander to the fashionable anxiety about enlargement, making strangers of peoples who will soon be fellow citizens. I was delighted, therefore, to hear that Mr Poettering has defied some in his own party and thrown his weight firmly behind future enlargement. It gives added salience to his group’s decision to meet last week in a city called Split.

I appeal to the faint hearts on the right to look at what has been achieved. Has not enlargement been the European Union’s greatest success story, its crown jewels? Commissioner Spidla’s report on transitional arrangements shows that enlargement has brought more jobs and higher economic growth, particularly in those countries that gave open access to their labour markets. But far beyond economic considerations, welcoming new Members has enriched the culture of our Union. Bulgaria and Romania will be treasured assets, if only we give them half a chance.

It seems that many of their people believe it is all a matter for government. On the contrary, winning the war against crime and corruption is a matter for each and every citizen. So I urge all Bulgarians and Romanians to work together with government to ensure the best possible outcome and avoid any delay to entry, not least because reform demanded to join the Union is the means to raise standards of living, quality of life, and security at home. I urge all colleagues in this House to show solidarity and demonstrate to the Bulgarians and the Romanians that they do not walk alone.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Daniel Marc Cohn-Bendit, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I did not know that my fellow MEPs, Mr Watson and Mr Poettering, embraced the attitude of young people of my son’s age who, when there is a problem, can be relied on to say: ‘but everything will be all right; really, it will’. For years, we get the same reply on the subject of enlargement: ‘but everything will be all right; really, it will’.

I, for my part, hope that it will indeed be all right. The only thing is, Mr Schulz, that responsibility has not been accepted by the Commission alone. It is you too who accepted responsibility when, a year ago, you decided in favour of enlargement when we all knew at the time that neither Romania nor Bulgaria was ready for this enlargement. It is you, then, and not only the Commission, who has accepted this responsibility.

So, stand to your responsibilities.

(DE) Or, to put it in German, Do as you have promised! You share responsibility for this!

(FR) Because what is in the process of being done today is too easy. It is too easy.

I have read what the Commission has said and repeated: Progress has to be made in various quarters. Mr Watson, what you say about Germany is true, but what ought to be said about Poland is just as true: Mr Haider is a democrat in comparison with a figure like Mr Lepper, who is a notorious racist, anti-Semite and homophobe. Today, it is in Europe – and, more specifically, in Poland – that a far-right government is in power. What has this Parliament, which rightly criticised Austria, said to denounce Poland? Nothing. It no longer dares to say anything where enlargement countries are concerned.

I am going to tell you something very simple. I am in favour of enlargement.

I am for enlarging Europe!

(FR) Not, however, in just any old way. Otherwise, the time will come when we shall make the Balkan countries and Turkey pay for our attitude towards Bulgaria and Romania.

Why should they be made to pay? The fact is, it is not a question of rejecting Romania. It is not a question of rejecting Bulgaria. It is simply a question of saying that, at the present time, neither Bulgaria nor Romania can be integrated, given the prevailing situation in those countries. Instead of talking constantly of monitoring, you should state that these countries will be integrated into the EU in 2008 and you should introduce programmes that will genuinely make it possible to integrate the Roma, or travellers, into Romania and Bulgaria.

Last week, I was in a Roma quarter. What I saw there was unbelievable. You are going to integrate these countries and have allocated funds to finance these programmes. What has happened to the money? Ask the Bulgarian Government what has happened to the money. Please do so. It will be unable to reply to you. What it will say is that it has promulgated a new law. Making new laws is a very good thing to do.

What, however, I, for my part, want to see is a change to the situation on the ground. That is why it is not enough to say that we are in favour of enlargement or that we are good Christians or good Jews or people who care about the world. No; the world has to change. The fact is, the attitude you have is not one that will cause the world to change. There is therefore a need to be clearer and more precise: yes to enlargement, but not on just any terms. Although it has the necessary instruments at its disposal, the Commission is not helping us enough.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jaromír Kohlíček, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (CS) I would advise my fellow Member to look at the integration of the Roma in Italy, and the integration of minorities in other Member States, in the old Member States and then to talk further, without interruption – perhaps.

Ladies and gentlemen, when the then French and German leaders, President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl, decided in 1990 to address the countries of Central, Southern and Eastern Europe, they said: ‘Welcome to a European Union free of borders. We are inviting you to participate in a common project that is open to all the countries of Europe. We want to assist you in catching up rapidly with our technical standards and with bringing your legal norms into line with those of the other states.’ Several years later in Copenhagen three conditions were passed, which the states interested in joining the EU would have to fulfil. The economic component of the Copenhagen criteria is obscure and is usually interpreted as including acceptance into the WTO (World Trade Organisation), as well as an EU Association Agreement.

The political component talks of the peaceful settling of relations with neighbouring states and of the politics of nationalities. That is something the old EU Member States have yet to master. In 1993 there was still no talk of selling off national assets, of liquidation quotas for agricultural products, or of the dismantling of nuclear power stations. The one fundamental requirement at that time was not to undermine conditions for the exchange of goods between the candidate countries and the EU. At the time, the Commission opened negotiations with 12 states. The negotiating agenda was technically broken up into 29 chapters, a section headed ‘Various’ and a section headed ‘Institutions’. After the end of negotiations, two years ago, 10 states were accepted as members. Up to this day there are some conditions – for example, those for drawing on funds – that have yet to be finalised for them. Their terms of accession include a whole series of discriminatory measures, and the fact is that these have been very poorly evaluated, especially in the areas of agriculture and the food industry. The inequality between the inhabitants of the old and the new Member States is all too apparent.

We find ourselves today in a curious situation. An entire agenda has been negotiated with Bulgaria and Romania, there has been agreement on all of the chapters, and now a new set of strange and discriminatory measures are appearing. These involve restitution demands, the dismantling of modern generator plants at the Kozloduj power station and unequal terms for agriculture and the food industry. People talk of corruption, of reforming the judiciary, of the situation of children, human trafficking and so on. Everything that applies to the old states applies to the new states. I understand the fanatical opponents of nuclear power. It is clear to me that their views will not change and that they could not care less about the energy situation in the Balkans. What surprises me is the position of Italy and Greece. They rely on Kozloduj for some of their power supplies. This means that after the plant has been shut down, Italy will be more dependent on imports from France and other countries. How will Greece make up for the missing power? Probably by burning more coal, regardless of agreements made under the Kyoto Protocol. They can always purchase emission permits. As for the Bulgarians, they will just have to burn candles, as the power station at Belene is still in the early stages of planning, unless the European Commission perhaps has another environmentally-friendly but workable solution. Just think for a moment, please, and try to explain how the EU is really contributing to the development of these two countries. Perhaps it is simply a matter of ensuring that they are not accepted into the Union on reasonable terms? My group is wholly in favour of their being accepted within the deadline of 1 July 2007.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Bastiaan Belder, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. (NL) Mr President, the two Dutch Protestant parties for which I can speak in this House have been consistently in favour of healing Europe’s post-war division. At the same time, we have always advocated a solid enlargement of the European Union, and hence an emphatic enforcement of the recognised accession criteria, the well-known Copenhagen criteria. We were saddened by the fact that Romania and Bulgaria were unable to join in 2004 during the Union’s biggest enlargement round in history.

After all, following the revolution of Europe’s magic year of 1989, church and civil-society contacts were strengthened between our grassroots support and both candidate countries. We could, at the same time, completely relate to the delay of 2004. How do we feel about the two present accession dates of 1 January 2007 and 1 January 2008, respectively? As I already said, my party is in favour of the ‘solid’ accession of Sofia and Bucharest, that is to say on the basis of a separate assessment for Bulgaria and Romania. The word ‘solid’ refers to facts and actual steps of reform rather than intentions.

Finally, it was not for nothing that the Council and Commission added two specific safeguard clauses to the three regular clauses in the accession treaties with Bulgaria and Romania. This also mirrors our message to the Commission. We would like a clear signal in October about Bulgaria’s and Romania’s readiness to accede on 1 January 2007, for such clarity will be to the benefit of all parties in Europe.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Brian Crowley, on behalf of the UEN Group. Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for his presentation and congratulate him on his work on this very difficult topic, one on which I have had many discussions with him in the recent past.

I would firstly like to make my key point and then we can discuss the wider issue. With regard to Romania and the situation of children in Romanian institutions, orphanages and foster homes, more work needs to be done; more action needs to be taken to treat those children as individual human beings with human rights. If sometimes that means allowing for international adoptions, then that should be the case. I know of many parents in Ireland who are willing to and wish to adopt children from Romania, especially children with mental and physical disabilities, and want to bring them to loving and caring homes in Ireland, but because of the difficulties they run into major problems. So I would ask the Romanian authorities to look at that again.

However, we are back to where we are because of the statement from the Commission today and also because of the underhand moves taking place in certain capitals around Europe to try to prevent or slow down the accession of Bulgaria and Romania. Let us not forget that this is not just about those two countries living up to commitments that they made to us under the Copenhagen criteria and under their accession agreements. It is also up to us to live up to our commitments.

We held out the hope and the desire and the wish that those countries could become part of the European Union. The first time we said to them: no, you are not ready, you cannot come in with the ten other countries on 1 May 2004; you have more work to do. They have progressed greatly in the recent past in changing laws, in amending systems that are decades old, to try and bring about a more realistic approach. It is now up to us to be generous in our praise of those countries, to give them genuine encouragement and not lectures on how their systems should operate, to give them our experience with the open method of coordination, under which you look at practices in other countries and take the best of them and try to achieve the best possible result.

We all know what the basics are. The basics are the rule of law, the rule of democracy, the separation of powers, the rights of the individual and human rights and fundamental freedoms. Everything else can be sorted out by simple legislation. At one stage people said that politics is not that important. Politics is important because it affects people’s lives. We in this Chamber are often criticised for not being radical enough in our opinions and our viewpoints.

What we need to do today is not just to tell the Governments of Bulgaria and Romania to continue with the work they are doing and achieve the goal they are trying to achieve; not only should we speak to the governments of our own countries and say they must be clear and even-handed and give a real response to those countries; we must speak directly to the citizens and the people of Bulgaria and Romania and say to them that within the European Union they have a home, they have a right, they have an entitlement, and we will defend those rights and those entitlements for them.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Andreas Mölzer (NI).(DE) Mr President, there is no doubt about the fact that ending the European division by welcoming into the European Union those countries that had, for decades, suffered under the Communist yoke, was a great and historic accomplishment. It has to be said, though, that the justified concerns and fears of the European public have for far too long been taken insufficiently seriously, so that the mechanism of enlargement has been, so to speak, put in place without reference to them. The current debate about the various scenarios involving Bulgaria and Romania – with their deferments and means of exerting pressure – is the consequence of what I regard as an ill-starred development.

If you are honest, you have to concede that it was in fact the inclusion of a rigid timetable in last year’s accession treaties that laid the foundation for our present dilemma, for it was only the prospect of accession that spurred Bulgaria and Romania on to renewed exertions in the hope of being accepted into the EU, so we have yet again denied ourselves the opportunity of exerting influence on prospective members in order to make them as well prepared as possible.

While it is not a matter for doubt that Romania and Bulgaria belong to the European family of peoples, these countries cannot be expected to resolve their manifold problems – such as corruption and organised crime – within the space of a few months. It is in the interests not only of the European Union, but also of the peoples of both candidate countries, that their accessions should not be overhasty, for, if they are, so that conditions in them are painted in the best possible light, then there is plenty of evidence from the past that it is the people in the accession countries who will end up footing the bill.

The intention is, no doubt, that the accession of Romania and Bulgaria should complete the reunification of Europe, but both countries must really be ready for accession, and ready for Europe.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Elmar Brok (PPE-DE).(DE) Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, enlargement is the most successful of the EU’s policies, and much of the peace, stability, freedom and prosperity that we enjoy is attributable to it, but it can work only if it is conducted in accordance with proper rules, or else it will have an inherent tendency to unravel and the whole exercise will be doomed.

I have to say to Mr Watson – although he is no longer here – that my party has always argued in favour of enlargement, and that my own country, unlike the United Kingdom, has never asked for a rebate in order to fund it. I would, however, like to say that action of the kind that the Commission is proposing will satisfy the requirements of the Treaty. If conditions laid down as binding in the accession treaties are not met, then the application of these rules does not amount to discrimination against a country, but is nothing other than the fulfilment of an agreement between the contracting parties.

Reading, as I do, about the major problems that there are with corruption and organised crime, about the considerable differences that there are between the two countries, and looking closely at what the Commission has had to say about this, which is to the effect that Romania should press on with its efforts at consolidation, while Bulgaria has yet to produce any evidence of doing anything at all on this front, it strikes me that this is an important communication, and here we must act on the basis of ‘everyone on their own merits’.

The second thing to be said is that we can make European funds available only if the structures in these countries are so organised that the money can get to its intended recipients in a way that will pass muster with the Court of Auditors. Until such time as they fulfil this requirement we have a problem on our hands. Reference has been made to a number of other similar examples, but always with considerable differences evident between the two countries.

I would like to encourage the Commission to put the proposal into effect with the utmost rigour, to review the situation between now and October, and to give the countries in question a chance to address the specific deficiencies that they have. I hope that they will take this in a constructive spirit, thus making it possible for a better report to be submitted in October, failing which the relevant safeguard clause will be put into effect in the manner provided for in the Treaty. I would like to remind the Commission of this, and to congratulate them on the report they have submitted.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Pierre Moscovici (PSE).(FR) Mr President, Mr Barroso, Mr Rehn, firstly, I should like sincerely to thank Mr Rehn, whose work as Commissioner for Enlargement is appreciated by us all for its rigour, good sense and thoroughness. Thanks to him and to the work he has done, cooperation between the European Parliament and the Commission and between the European institutions and the Romanian and Bulgarian authorities has been effective and fruitful. The process of Romania’s and Bulgaria’s accession is now reaching a crucial stage: that at which our institutions have to take a decision confirming or, instead, postponing the date – initially set at 1 January 2007 – on which these two candidate countries are to join the European Union.

I endorse the spirit of Mr Rehn’s report. As in the past, the tendency is to favour accession in 2007, but accession subject to precise conditions. I have been pointing out for many months that our friendship for Romania and Bulgaria and our support for the process of their accession always goes hand in hand with a precise demand, namely that there be respect for the criteria and for the reforms needed if the countries concerned are to move towards accession. However, I would go further than Mr Barroso and Mr Rehn regarding the judgment to be made today concerning the outcome of the efforts made by these countries to respond to our demands. Indeed, I firmly believe that, only seven months before the anticipated accession date of 1 January 2007, it is our duty finally and clearly to confirm this date or say that it no longer applies. Moreover, I am now, unlike Mr Cohn-Bendit, entirely convinced that this date should be confirmed.

In expressing a more precise opinion on Romania in my capacity as European Parliament rapporteur, I have on several occasions had the opportunity to state that, in my opinion, the postponement clause should only be regarded as a last resort and emergency measure. I have on many occasions pointed out in this Chamber how dangerous it would be for us to trivialise this clause or to use it as a pretext for drawing attention to a variety of real concerns and one-off causes of dissatisfaction, so rather losing sight of the overall picture. I do not think that that is what is happening now.

The Commission’s report emphasises that Romania now satisfies the political criteria and those to do with the market economy and that the acquis communautaire has continued diligently to be applied, although, admittedly, there remain a number of points in relation to which the country will have to make further progress. The Commission’s recommendations in this connection are valuable and must be put into practice. However, the report published today leaves me feeling certain that the country’s current situation is not so significantly wanting that a measure as radical as a postponement of the accession date would be the appropriate response.

As for less serious concerns, the oral question that I submitted together with Mr van Orden and Mr Brok was designed to promote the other safeguard clauses of a quite different, and clearly less dramatic, nature. They offer the possibility of more continuous, sustained yet still very stringent monitoring, if need be accompanied by sanctions during the first three years following Romania’s accession to the European Union, and it would be the job of these clauses to respond to the various concerns that might remain regarding specific points. I also think it important to emphasise now what the cost would be of hesitating too long about giving a clear yes or no to Romania’s accession on 1 January 2007.

May was set as the deadline by which the European institutions had to take a decision on the date for Romania’s and Bulgaria’s accession, and that seemed wise to me. I still think it is wise. Postponing accession would present practical problems. The time allocated to ratifying the accession treaty would be restricted and would perhaps even be too short. The debate on enlargement would become still more tense. That is why, while keenly appreciating the rigour of the work done by the Commissioner for Enlargement and while concurring with his analyses and demands, I propose that we proceed on the basis of this work and of the very encouraging results that he emphasises and finally formulate our clear agreement to, and support for, Romania’s accession on 1 January 2007 on the conditions specified by the Commissioner.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nicholson of Winterbourne (ALDE). – Mr President, I am delighted that I do not have to play cards against Mr Rehn, because he holds his cards so close to his chest and plays his trump card – his last card – at the very last minute! Mercifully, in this instance, he is playing the cards on behalf of Romania and Bulgaria. He is willing them to win and it is absolutely clear that they are going to do so. I am confident that 1 January 2007 will be D-Day – delivery day – for Romania and Bulgaria, when they will receive full membership of the European Union. In fact, I am so confident that on 31 December 2006 I shall be buying my ticket to Bucharest in Romania.

I want to thank and pay tribute to Fokion Fotiadis and to Jonathan Scheele, who succeeded him at the Commission delegation in Bucharest, to Mr Rehn himself and to Mr Verheugen, his predecessor. They have taken up the task of working hard to get both countries into the Union, fighting corruption and human trafficking, addressing all the different issues regarding the free market, the rule of law and transparency: everything that has been mentioned so many times over the last six and a half years that is now coming true. It is a hugely exciting moment.

I am so pleased to have been able to work alongside several Romanian prime ministers, including the current Prime Minister, Mr Tariceanu, several presidents, including the current Head-of-State, President Basescu, as well as a huge variety of Members of Parliament. Here today in the Distinguished Visitors’ Gallery are Alin Teodorescu, as well as the Secretary of State for Adoptions, Theodora Bertzi, Gabriela Coman, responsible for child protection, and, of course, the Minister for Europe, Mrs Boagiu. All are so welcome and now they are to become our permanent brothers and sisters inside the Union.

Inevitably, there are problems. The geographical location of both countries makes them vulnerable, particularly to trafficking, from eastern Europe especially and from Russia. Romania and Bulgaria were highlighted in the UN human trafficking report last week.

It is true that there is more to be done and there always will be more to be done, but within moments they will be here beside us and they will be full members. I thank the Commissioner for all his work.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Joost Lagendijk (Verts/ALE). – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I agree with the Commission’s conclusions where Romania is concerned. Since that country has indeed made substantial progress over the past year, a case can be made for it to accede in 2007. That is why it would be wise to do a kind of final check in the autumn and that it would be very wise, following its accession, to closely monitor it to ensure that this progress that we have seen is also taking hold, although I must say that the sanctions for non-compliance are not very impressive.

I also agree with the Commission’s reports where Bulgaria is concerned, because that country is not so much enjoying substantial progress as it is steeped in substantial problems, particularly where the fight against organised crime and corruption are concerned. That is why I do not yet agree with the Commission’s conclusions about Bulgaria. I think it is unfair to lump Romania and Bulgaria together and to say that 2007 is feasible for Bulgaria too. I have to say to the Commission that, if it takes its own reports seriously, then I do not believe that those weighty problems that it has flagged in them can be resolved in five months’ time. I am in favour of coming clean at this stage and saying to Bulgaria that, regrettably, they will not be able to join until 2008.

I can see the Commission’s political dilemma, because there is no majority for this option in the Council, the body to which the Commission issues an opinion, but I think it unfair to lump Romania and Bulgaria together until the last moment.

Why is it so wise and why would it be good to draw a distinction between the countries based on their own achievements? This is about sending out a message, not only to our own people, but also to new candidate countries such as Croatia and Turkey. The message should be that it makes a difference whether you carry out reforms or not. If you carry them out, it pays off, if you do not, as is the case in Bulgaria, then penalties follow. At the moment, it very much looks like it does not matter what you do, and that the decision for accession depends on internal developments in the EU, opinion polls and votes, rather than on the candidates’ achievements.

The lesson we should learn from this procedure is never to mention any more dates, for that then takes the pressure off. If there is cause for any doubt, we would be better off not mentioning a deferral date and we should not give the candidate countries any guarantees to the effect that they will be able to join if they meet the conditions. If they fail to live up to this, they will have to live with the consequences.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL). – (NL) Mr President, the pioneers of the European Union started with six states, mainly under the direct sphere of influence of Brussels and Strasbourg. Nobody could then seriously foresee that these European communities would grow into an overarching cooperative of 27 or more European states. Since the early 70s, those pioneers have nonetheless managed, gradually, to build a monopoly position when dealing with European states. States that used to belong to the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) or the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON) now form part of the European Union. The forthcoming accession of Romania and Bulgaria more or less puts the finishing touches to this development.

It would benefit their membership if this enlargement could partly be explained as a victory in the Cold War against the old adversary. This will yield support that would otherwise not be there. It was partly for that reason that this Parliament decided last year that those two states that were not ready with the preparations in 2004 should still be admitted in 2007 or 2008. I was one of those who voted in favour of that idea.

Despite this, the domestic situation of those two newcomers has come in for some widespread criticism. To this day, Roma people are driven out and their houses razed to the ground. To this day, nature and the environment are under more serious threat there than in other parts of Europe because motorways are built and minerals extracted in the cheapest ways possible. There is still no ready insight into the way governments spend their money and the companies that benefit from this. There are also doubts about the judiciary’s independence and objectivity. There are still ethnic peoples who feel they are being treated as second-class citizens, and people are still leaving those countries in their droves.

The odds are, then, that their accession, will, with the benefit of hindsight, be seen as a huge mistake and a failure. Whilst those shortcomings may not change anything about their membership, they will generate additional arguments against further enlargement. The first country that will be at the receiving end of this is Croatia, a country that already meets those criteria better than Romania and Bulgaria, and has much in common with current Member State Slovenia, but may have to wait for a very long time nevertheless. That is even more the case for the candidatures of other countries such as Macedonia, the rest of the Balkans, Moldova and Ukraine. How can we stave off such a negative outcome? Sustained solidarity may be better served with more active support in order for those countries to be brought up to speed quicker than the swift admission or more free market.

In the Dutch Parliament, both my party, the Socialist Party, and the Christian Democrats, have concluded that the risks of enlargement in 2007 are too great.

 
  
  

IN THE CHAIR: MR ONESTA
Vice-President

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM). – (SV) The issue of Bulgaria’s and Romania’s membership of the EU has, of course, already been decided in practice. The only matter that we can formally debate in this House is that of whether these two countries are to be admitted in January 2007 or January 2008.

There are two reasons why the June List welcomes enlargement to include new Member States. Firstly, the more of us there are the more difficult it is to imagine Brussels’ being able to regulate the European Union’s development in detail. That constitutes considerable progress. Secondly, our admitting new countries to the EU is a great success for democracy, for the principle of the rule of law and for peace in Europe. We are, in that sense, adherents of what is usually called the EU’s soft power.

In actual fact, the EU contributes to democracy and the principle of the rule of law in the countries on its doorstep for the simple reason that such countries wish, for all sorts of different reasons, to join the EU, and, before they join, we in the EU require them to fulfil important conditions, known as the Copenhagen criteria. That being the case, we must, however, take these considerations seriously. It is obvious that Bulgaria and Romania do not fulfil those requirements we chose to set down from the beginning. For the same reason, we can see that it was a mistake to begin membership negotiations with Turkey right now. Its treatment of the Kurds and of women and its attitudes to, for example, freedom of expression show that we should not have done so. We were right, however, to decline, for the time being, to enter into negotiations with Serbia on the grounds that General Mladić is still at large.

What we can now do regarding the issue we confront today is at least to postpone Bulgaria’s and Romania’s accession to January 2008. With the future in mind, we should in that way be sending the correct signal to Europe, including Croatia, Serbia, Turkey, Ukraine and Belarus.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Konrad Szymański (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, every time we discuss the issue of enlargement, we touch upon the historical dimension of our work. For the Union, each enlargement represents not only a formal celebration, but a necessity and an opportunity.

A significant problem posed by enlargement is the way in which it is perceived by the outside world, as it is easy to calculate the costs of aid transferred to new, usually poorer countries. However, this image is far from complete. One cannot see the extent to which enlargement can boost trade and investment and create opportunities for modernisation. Without enlargement we would not be able to boast today that we, as the European Parliament, are the point of contact for 450 million citizens. There would be 75 million fewer of us and Europe would be a correspondingly smaller player on the global stage, which we so eagerly aspire to appear on today.

The greatest political lie being spread across Europe today by has-been politicians who did not succeed at home is to accuse the enlargement process of causing all the problems we currently face. The opposite is the case. The consequences of a lack of reform would be all the more serious were it not for enlargement. That is why I enthusiastically greet the prospect of two new Member States joining the European Union, Bulgaria and Romania, which have reformed their national political culture with much effort over the last few years.

As a Member from Poland, a country that owes a lot to the European Union’s aid policy in recent years, I am enthusiastic about the prospects for membership of these two new countries, although we will soon have to share our dwindling Union budget. As a Polish Member, I would also advise you to pay no heed to the warnings issued by Mr Cohn-Bendit. It is difficult to believe advice concerning enlargement that comes from someone with as little knowledge of other Member States, such as Poland, which has been a Member State for two years. Perhaps political emotions impair the ability to rationally assess the new Polish Government. However, Mr Cohn-Bendit, we must be careful with our emotions, or we may say something foolish.

Sometimes one could get the impression that the doors of the Union are closing like the doors of a lift, and that extra passengers are having difficulty squeezing through them. I hope that that is either an illusion, or a temporary fault in this lift called the European Union, as I would not want anyone to travel in a lift whose doors do not open.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ryszard Czarnecki (NI). – (PL) Mr President, I was 18 when I took part in one of the longest student strikes in Eastern Europe. It took place in Poland during the ‘Solidarity’ period. I remember the posters that we pinned to the walls of my university. They stated: ‘Banning is banned’. Today such a poster could well be hung up on the European Commission building, reading: ‘The banning of Romania and Bulgaria’s accession to the European Union as soon as possible is banned’. Yes, that poster which stated ‘Banning is banned’ was a reference to the student uprisings in May 1968 in Paris.

Even then I knew of the role played in these protests by my colleague Mr Cohn-Bendit. For many of us at the time, Mr Cohn-Bendit was a kind of contemporary Robin Hood figure. Robin Hood could not be killed. What I did not know was that, a quarter of a century later, Robin Hood could commit political suicide by talking nonsense, as he has done in this House today. Mr Cohn-Bendit did not speak about the huge effort made by the Romanian and Bulgarian nations, which want to fulfil the European Union’s accession criteria. He did not dedicate much time to the measures taken by the governments of both these countries in this field. He used the debate as a pretext for talking rubbish about my country, Poland.

If I were him, I would prefer to focus on racism and anti-Semitism in Germany and France, countries he is very familiar with, or perhaps on the social problems in France. These are the real threats to Europe, not the political fiction that Mr Cohn-Bendit deigned to present to us today. It is a good thing that Romania and Bulgaria are joining the Union in 2007, as I hope they will. We should not set up a new ‘Iron Curtain’ for these countries, a new version of the Berlin Wall. They do not deserve that. Let us encourage them to meet the Union’s accession criteria, but let us not create unfair barriers for them. Let us acknowledge the considerable efforts made by the societies and governments of both these countries in this field. I appeal to the European Commission to do just that.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I should like to thank Commissioner Rehn for the serious way in which Bulgaria’s progress towards accession is being monitored. According to the Accession Treaty, Bulgaria will accede on 1 January 2007 unless the Council unanimously decides, on a Commission recommendation, to postpone entry for one year. The Commission has made no such recommendation. Let us be clear on this. Bulgaria fulfils the political criteria for membership, she has a functioning market economy, economic progress has been maintained and the Bulgarian unemployment rate, while still high, is now lower than that of Germany. In relation to other matters, I note that the 16 areas marked as of serious concern in October have now been reduced to 6. Of course, these must not in any way be underestimated.

Firstly, there is the need for more effective action against organised crime, fraud and corruption. That is the area that most perturbs the people of Bulgaria as well as our own citizens. There has been progress since October. I spoke about that in this House last month, but many of the crime bosses are still at large and there is concern about how far their tentacles spread. Over the coming months, we need to see dramatic results as well as further steps to improve the effectiveness and resources of the police, investigative and judicial services. The Commission must specify more precisely what outcomes are required.

Secondly, not unrelated to the first point, is the need for strengthened financial controls for the future use of structural funds. That is vitally important. There must not be any possibility of what is effectively our taxpayers’ money going into the wrong hands or being wasted. As we have seen from the Court of Auditors’ consistent refusal to sign off the EU accounts, it is an area where the EU itself needs to put its house in order. It is up to the Commission to ensure that effective financial management structures to guarantee the integrity of the funding system are in place and, if necessary, to withhold funding until that is the case.

I believe that the European Council, at its summit in June 2006, should endorse the decision for the accession of Bulgaria on 1 January 2007, at the same time confirming the remedial action that is required of Bulgaria in the months ahead and the nature of possible post-accession monitoring.

In other words, it is ‘yes ... but’! To a certain extent, I believe that is what the Commission is trying to say. For its part, the Bulgarian Government must take urgent action to deliver tangible results, particularly in the fight against organised crime. Much has been achieved in the last six months. It is vitally important that even better results are delivered in the next six months.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jan Marinus Wiersma (PSE). – (NL) Mr President, I will try to keep to the three minutes. I completely endorse the analysis which my group chairman gave a moment ago in a reaction to the Commission’s reports. My group, the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, has always been, and will continue to be, consistent where support for Romania’s and Bulgaria’s membership is concerned.

Whilst I can imagine that people in Sofia and Bucharest are disappointed about the Commission’s ongoing refusal to commit itself one way or another, it may also be important to draw your attention to the good news in the Commission’s report, namely that according to the Commission, it is definitely possible to meet the target date of 2007. That is also our group’s ambition.

Secondly, we are against separating the two countries in the way referred to by other speakers a moment ago. With Romania and Bulgaria actually being treated in the same way, we prevent those countries from entering into a race against each other. Another important point to make is that, according to the Commission, both countries have, to a large extent, adopted the acquis. The number of red flags has significantly decreased in both cases: from 14 to 4 in Romania and from 16 to 6 in Bulgaria. People have worked very hard and achieved a great deal in a short space of time.

It is also important for the Commission, in its reports, to refrain from using the wording that one of the countries is clearly badly prepared in a certain area. That is phraseology that would immediately lead to a discussion about deferral. I think that the progress that has been made in both countries demonstrates the governments’ determination and the fact that we can use that as a basis for our optimism that 2007 is very much possible.

As Mr Schulz has already indicated, this also requires an effort on the part of the Commission itself, which, indeed, shoulders a heavy responsibility in that it must specify what is exactly required from the governments in both countries. Particularly where Bulgaria is concerned, I noticed that there have been a few misunderstandings between the Commission and that country’s Government about what the exact criteria are. I think that both the Government and Parliament in Sofia do not want to leave us in any doubt as to their willingness to do the things that need to be done as quickly as possible.

The difference between Romania and Bulgaria has mainly to do with implementation. In the fight against corruption, Romania swung into action earlier. I have no doubt that, now that legislation is in place in Sofia too, we will very soon see progress in the area of tackling serious crime and the fight against corruption.

We have noticed that the Commission has decided in favour of a certain timeframe, and I think we have to resign ourselves to this and accept it. It is to be hoped that this timeframe is in synch with the ratification processes that are currently taking place, or are yet to take place, in a number of Member States. What is, and will remain, important is that the agreed accession date is respected. We trust that Romania and Bulgaria will succeed in this, and I think that both Sofia and Bucharest realise that this trust must also be earned.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alexander Lambsdorff (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner Rehn, ladies and gentlemen, Bulgaria and Romania will join the European Union on 1 January 2007. That is beyond question. Both countries have made progress in their reform efforts, but this work will continue for some time yet. We all know that. Mr Cohn-Bendit is right there. However, he is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and that is irresponsible. It is the Commission that is acting responsibly here. It is right not to issue a blank cheque right away. It is also right to develop a perspective for continuing to monitor the reform processes, if necessary even in the years after accession. There are still shortcomings in some areas, some of them serious; they have been mentioned here. We must ensure that the laws are not only adopted there but also applied. I am thinking especially of the EU resources that will be spent there.

Fair monitoring by the Commission can help here and should be accepted by both countries. Pierre Moscovici has said so. That is far less drastic than postponement or the like.

The citizens of the EU and of future candidate countries will be keenly interested in enlargement policy in the future, too. That makes it all the more important that the EU should pursue a consistent and credible enlargement policy. This enlargement has shown that in future, we in the European Parliament must be careful to vote on enlargements close to the time of accession and not 18 months before. I want to make clear again that this is not the accession candidates’ fault, it is our own fault. There is moreover no point in including in treaties postponement clauses that actually have no teeth, like Article 39. The Commission cannot recommend a postponement of accession at all. What would happen if its recommendation were not followed because of just a few votes in the Council? The Commission would be repudiated and there would be two countries sitting at the table of a Council, the majority of which had previously voted against both countries’ participation. No, that will not do. We will therefore need better instruments in future.

The accession of Bulgaria and Romania is beyond question. Both countries have achieved a lot, but we too still have something to do in order to improve our enlargement policy. I also believe we should be holding this debate in Brussels and not in Strasbourg.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Milan Horáček (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, this recommendation is wrong. The decision is being deferred more and more. Why do we not honestly say that both countries fail to satisfy the criteria? Much is only on paper and unfortunately the reality is different. If we take a wrong decision and allow these two countries to join prematurely, we will pay for it. Our trips to Romania and Bulgaria, talks with NGOs, members of parliament and government representatives from both countries in Sofia only last week have confirmed my opinion that, despite all their efforts, neither country is ready for accession yet – not in 2007, and not even in 2008!

Three examples from Sofia: crime, corruption, Kozloduj! 173 contract killings since 1990 – none of them have been cleared up. Corruption – universal. The Kozloduj nuclear power plant is dangerous and has still not been shut down. I do not have time to go into the problems of minorities – the Roma – and the conditions in prisons, homes for the elderly and disabled and much more besides. If we persist with this wrong decision, it will have repercussions both internally and externally. We will lose what credibility we still have with the Union’s citizens. Countries like Croatia, which are making great efforts and in my opinion are further on in many respects, will be blocked. Here, the liberals are supporting the liberal prime minister in Romania, the socialists the socialist prime minister in Bulgaria. We are not forced to stick to this wrong decision. Corrections must be possible. This self-deception is cowardly and dangerous.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vladimír Remek (GUE/NGL). – (CS) Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, reasonable accession agreements have been concluded for Bulgaria and Romania, and the Union was to have been enlarged to include these states from the first day of next year, but the deadline has again been thrown into doubt. Allow me to make a few observations from my own experience, on the grounds that we were under the same sort of pressure that Bulgaria and Romania face today prior to our accession to the Union. We too were told that the Czech Republic was not fully prepared, that it had not yet sufficiently fulfilled this or that requirement. The outcome is that we still do not enjoy the same conditions as the so-called old Member States. Furthermore, I would venture to add that more than one member of the old Union of 15 might find it difficult to meet the conditions offered, for example, to the Czech Republic.

The requirements placed on Bulgaria and Romania are tougher still. By casting doubt over their accession date and by imposing unequal terms we are increasing insecurity and providing ammunition to those forces in both states that oppose EU accession. In addition, we are creating for ourselves sharp internal divisions for the Union in the future, by which I do not mean to say, of course, that we should turn a blind eye to failures over tackling corruption in Bulgaria and Romania or to the issue of organised crime, any more than we should in other Member States. Yet it is not good for new states and their citizens to be joining the Union with the feeling that they are second-rate and unequal. In connection with this, I feel that it should not be our aim to bring about a repeat of the situation in the Czech Republic, where a majority of people, according to a public opinion survey, now believe that equality and justice do not prevail in the Union and that the so-called old Member States continue to enjoy advantages that are denied to the new Member States, in the form of subsidies that are withheld from the latter. In the case of Bulgaria and Romania we are, at the very least, going down the same route. I will give you one example of this. The Kozloduj nuclear power station – already mentioned several times – is just as safe as many others in Europe, according to international experts. The Union, however, is obliging Bulgaria as a condition of entry to shut down part of its nuclear capacity, which will turn it from an exporter of electricity into an importer. The question is who really benefits from this. When all is said and done, we have raised the hopes of the inhabitants of Bulgaria and Romania regarding membership of the Union and we should therefore not treat them like hostages and quibble over their accession date. It is possible that we, as Member States with our own economic interests, might have more cause for regret than Bulgaria and Romania if the enlargement does not take place by 1 January.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nigel Farage (IND/DEM). – Mr President, well, isn’t it all lovely? Virtually everybody agrees – the Commission, the group leaders in Parliament – that it is jolly good that two more countries are joining. But could we please stop this farcical pretence that it has got anything to do with the criteria of dealing with the justice system or them fulfilling the acquis communautaire. Romania and Bulgaria will join on 1 January next year for political reasons. This has to happen, because you need a diversion. The peoples of Europe have lost confidence in you and in these institutions.

All today’s statement represents is a victory for the political classes, the classes in the European Union who want this to be a world superpower to take on the United States of America, and of course a huge victory for the politicians in Romania and Bulgaria, who will enrich themselves enormously and give themselves jobs in perpetuity. So welcome to Romania and Bulgaria; let us welcome their politicians onto the EU gravy train.

But what of the implications for the rest of us? Well, I am all for free trade. I am all for the free movement of goods and services. I am all for us having the opportunity to work in each other’s countries, but to have an open-door immigration policy between countries with differing GDPs is madness. Already Britain has taken in over a third of a million people from the ten countries that joined in 2004 and it is now estimated by Migration Watch in the United Kingdom that when Bulgaria and Romania join we will take in another third of a million over the next three years. Our public services simply cannot stand mass migration on that scale, and Romania and Bulgaria will lose many of their brightest and best young people into the bargain.

So you may have your diversion today, Commissioner, but the EU is failing, public confidence is falling and it will all end in tears.

(Applause from the IND/DEM Group)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Hans-Peter Martin (NI). – (DE) Mr President, yes, it will end in tears; the question is, which? I do not believe you have taken the European Union forward with your decision, which you have announced today, certainly not towards being a superpower, but you have taken another step towards implosion. Because you are again acting quite contrary to what you claim are your criteria, there will now be a disastrous marriage between the cultures of corruption of Brussels and Strasbourg and those of Bucharest and Sofia.

The people who are pushing you to do that, namely the British and Polish Governments, will have to answer to their electorates for it. I wonder whom the Commission will answer to? The day before yesterday, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung wrote: ‘The real problem is not the supposed dependence of the judiciary, but on the contrary its almost complete independence from all means of control. Judges and public prosecutors need fear no supervision, because so far there has been none. The judiciary enjoys great freedom, frequently even freedom from justice and the law. There is plenty of scope for buying judgments’. Yesterday’s Standard reports that the head of the Federation of German Detectives said on his return: ‘It is pointless. Whenever I tried to go into details they said disclosure was against the national interest’.

The mistake was to promise them accession too early. Why are you still making even more mistakes by continuing to talk as though you wanted to take the Union forward?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

   Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, I will read the report that you have just outlined very carefully, but allow me to make some preliminary comments on Romania.

Firstly, you acknowledge the significant progress made on reforming the judicial system and fighting corruption, although you say that the efforts need to be maintained. I think that this is an area of serious concern, as has already been said. It was a real priority area, in which we now all acknowledge that the progress made in Romania has been very significant and we should celebrate that.

Mr Rehn, you told us that there are still four areas of serious concern regarding the acquis communautaire, for example on some agricultural and veterinary matters. In short, in any case they are areas on which I know that the Romanian authorities are working very hard, as I had the opportunity to see a fortnight ago, when I visited Bucharest with a delegation from my Group.

Commissioner, as I said at the plenary on 26 April, I was personally in favour of making the timescale for accession clear as soon as possible, because this would remove the uncertainty for the governments concerned as quickly as possible. However, I can see that the Commission, although it recognises that Romania is working adequately towards the objective of 2007, prefers to wait, for the sake of rigour and prudence, until autumn to confirm whether accession will actually take place in January 2007, as I hope it will.

I am convinced that the Romanian authorities will maintain their firm commitment to the common objective of 2007. In the October 2005 report the Commission mentioned a high number of areas, fourteen as you told us, affecting seven chapters of the acquis communautaire, that were causes for serious concern.

Now I understand that these areas have been reduced to four, as you told us, and they affect very few chapters. The progress is therefore evident. And with these precedents, with the serious Europeanism of the Romanian authorities, I think that they will pay the utmost attention to your recommendations. I am sure that in the autumn you will be able to confirm the date of 1 January 2007 for accession, with no further conditions. I am optimistic.

Finally, I would also like to encourage those Parliaments who have not done so to speed up the process as soon as possible for the ratification of the accession treaty.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alexandra Dobolyi (PSE). – Mr President, I too welcome the Commission’s decision on the accession date of Romania and Bulgaria. I also wish to praise the Commission for its work, in particular the work of DG Enlargement.

The European Council was right to decide to welcome the people of Bulgaria and Romania as from 1 January 2007 to our big European family – the European family to which they have always belonged since they share our historic culture and common values. Your message to the people of Bulgaria and Romania is the right one.

Both countries have worked hard and they have achieved enormous progress so far. The people of both countries strongly supported their governments in this work. These people will now be even more motivated to support the reforms that are still needed and that are described in the Commission’s report. As the Commissioner has pointed out very correctly in numerous exchanges of views which we have had either in plenary and in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Bulgaria and Romania have shown continuous progress in all the relevant areas. Both capitals are aware that they have to speed up and reinforce their efforts in certain fields and I strongly believe that they are going to be successful in fulfilling the expectations of the European Union, as expressed by its Parliament, and most of the expectations of their own people.

As a Hungarian, I should also like to say a few words about the Hungarian minority in Romania. Firstly, I should like to thank the College of Commissioners for raising the issue of the situation of the Hungarian minority in the current report. Secondly, as I have said so many times in this House concerning this issue, one of the basic failures of the current Romanian Government coalition agreement was and is to adopt a law on minorities. Although I believe that the accession of Romania will provide a solution for the Hungarians living beyond the border, and that from 1 January 2007 onwards we will be able to live in a common Europe without borders, I also wish to emphasise to the Romanian Government that it should not forget its promise to adopt a minority law; both Parliament and the Commission will follow that up closely.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Cecilia Malmström (ALDE). (SV) Pressure has been exerted from many quarters in today’s debate, and there has been much speculation about the observations to be made and, naturally, a good deal of nervousness in the countries concerned. I am therefore pleased about today’s message from the Commission that we hope to be able to welcome our Romanian and Bulgarian friends into the Community at the beginning of next year. The road leading up to that point has been, and remains, long and difficult. Obviously, the consequences of the huge repression practised by the Communist dictatorships in Romania and Bulgaria and of the destitution caused there by them cannot be reversed with a wave of the hand. These countries’ politicians and people have made enormous efforts and sacrifices with the clear aim of reforming and democratising their countries and leading them into the European Community.

A lot of work remains to be done, and we are painfully aware of the problems that exist: corruption, organised crime, the difficulties of integrating the Roma and the situation of orphans. We are all aware of the criteria too. They are the same for everyone, and we are relying on the Commission to carry out an objective and professional assessment and evaluation. We are also relying on you wholeheartedly to support and help Bulgaria and Romania tackle these difficulties so that we might make progress towards their becoming Members at the beginning of next year. We in the European Parliament will help out insofar as we are able to, and we are convinced that matters will progress well in the time that remains.

The Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe has for a long time advocated safety clauses for us all, new and old Member States alike. We know that, in the present EU too, the Treaties are infringed and human rights violated, and it would be helpful to obtain clearer mechanisms for becoming aware of these developments and remedying them.

EU integration is like a tango. It takes two for it to work. The candidate countries must do their homework, but we too must do our own. We have internal problems in the EU with which we must get to grips, and that is something about which we talked this morning with Commissioner Wallström. We must also dare to proclaim the significance of enlargement and explain to our people why it is so important for Romania and Bulgaria now to get together with us and for Romanians and Bulgarians to sit in this House and be allowed to speak from the benches instead of sitting in the public gallery and merely listening.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Elly de Groen-Kouwenhoven (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, for half a century Bulgaria was under Communist rule. However, when the Berlin Wall fell it was brought under post-Communist rule. Agents of the former secret service, the Darzavna Sigurnost, continued to control the state. The West did business with them during the privatisations, which were often carried out illegally. Financial support from the West hardly reached the unemployed Bulgarians and the victimised Roma. Only the former secret agents flourished in their roles as businessmen, judges, bankers, politicians and leaders of NGOs. Has the population ever had a fair chance under post-Communist rule?

In the 2001 progress report, the rapporteur, Mr Van Orden, urged the Bulgarian authorities to provide further information on the murder of dissident writer Georgi Markov in London in 1978. It was one of the many contractual killings left unaccounted for long ago and more recently.

The report stresses the need for greater efforts for the social inclusion of Roma. I also agree with the Commission that further efforts are needed to combat all forms of intolerance, racism and xenophobia. I appeal, therefore, to all my fellow MEPs to sign Written Declaration No 19 – initiated by MEPs from five different political groups – on protection of people in Bulgaria against neo-totalitarianism. Holocaust-deniers in Bulgaria close to the former secret service do not belong in the EU. I am also grateful that the Commission has concerns about the unacceptable living conditions of the Roma. They are scapegoats, like Jews, Turks and homosexuals.

Finally, I am very pleased that last week the Bulgarian Minister of the Interior, Mr Petkov, promised the Verts/ALE delegation that all the archives of the Darzavna Sigurnost would be opened before 20 July. Only then will we know who killed Georgi Markov, who committed other crimes and who is really ruling Bulgaria today. Let us support real reformers and free Bulgaria from its past, instead of postponing its future.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jean-Claude Martinez (NI). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, on the motorway between Istanbul and Sofia, there is a border post or toll-gate called Kapitan Andreevo. Remember that name because it is going to appear in all the newspapers as from 1 January if Bulgaria joins the European Union. Indeed, that is where, every year, 300 000 lorries arrive from Turkey. The queue is five kilometres long, and the lorries wait for three days. They are used for criminal trafficking in all its forms: drug-trafficking from Afghanistan, human trafficking from Pakistan and trading in amphetamines and forged currency. To monitor all this, there is one customs official per thousand lorries. As a result, everything gets through.

There is an obvious need for at least one cargo scanner. Mr Rehn told us in this House on 25 October that radiographic equipment was indeed necessary, and EUR 8 million was paid out for this purpose. Yet there is no scanner. The fact is that everyone who liked Sangatte, Brindisi, Almeria and the Canaries is going to love Kapitan Andreevo, the gate for entering Europe from Asia and the focal point from which criminality will spread far and wide.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Guido Podestà (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to congratulate Commissioner Rehn on the thorough measures he is pursuing in relation to the two countries in question and, from what the Commissioner has said, it is clear that Romania and Bulgaria have made progress. To have reduced the remaining unresolved points from sixteen to six and from fourteen to four in the space of a few months is, in my opinion, an outstanding result.

Well, I think that we are all aware in this House that, when ten countries joined the European Union on 1 May 2004, the ten countries in question were not completely ready to enter the Union. We also know that the efforts made by those nations complement each other over time. Can you tell me that, in some of those countries, there are not problems with regard to minorities and that the fight against corruption does not concern each of the 25 Member States of the Union? So what has changed compared to 1 May 2004? Why was the emphasis placed on photographs and flags back then, while a much firmer and also much more formal position can be observed today?

I believe that we must acknowledge the fact that, if it is true that there are in fact problems in the two countries that are about to join the Union, it is likely that the main problems exist within the Union itself. Furthermore, if we ask ourselves what has changed compared to back then, the answer is that we were unable to carry through that Constitutional Treaty, which was a fundamental element of this enlargement.

We must be careful, however, not to make those countries and those populations that have worked so hard to emerge from the historic era of Communism pay a price that they do not deserve to pay. To conclude, Commissioner, I believe that we are on the right track and I hope that 1 January 2007 will be confirmed in the autumn as the date on which Romania and Bulgaria will join.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Hannes Swoboda (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let us be honest and realistic. We must assume that these two countries, Bulgaria and Romania, will join on 1 January 2007, firstly because they will continue their own reform work – I am convinced of that – and secondly because the required majorities in the Council are in favour.

The crucial thing for me, however, is how these countries will enter the European Union in 2007, whether they will somehow muddle through or slip in, or whether they will come in with their heads held high and we will be able to agree with a clear conscience. I agree with the Commission and with you, Commissioner Rehn, that there are things that still need to be done in both countries. Only I really would ask you to say very specifically what changes are necessary. Because you do not seem to be clear about some of the things in this report. You speak, for example, of ‘ambiguity regarding the independence of the Judiciary’. There must be reasons why that does not seem clear to you. The Bulgarians and Romanians must then each be told what they have to do.

I believe both countries’ governments are prepared to make the changes. But if we are making so much of this issue, perhaps more than the Copenhagen Criteria or the acquis communautaire allow – and there are good reasons for that – then we must say very clearly what changes are necessary; I must ask you to do that today, and when you are in those countries tomorrow. The changes must be spelled out specifically and realistically and they must be achievable, because there is no point in demanding things that cannot be achieved in this short space of time. If we do that, and if there is then special monitoring, in other words a precise period of observation, then I am sure that both countries will now take the necessary steps and really will be able to join on 1 January 2007. I believe they will then be able to play a big part. Some Members have maintained that crime and corruption prevail in both countries, but that is not the case. Both countries have done a great deal to improve things, and they will continue to do so. Pressure from the European Union has brought that about.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Bronisław Geremek (ALDE). – (PL) Mr President, I would firstly like to say that Mr Rehn’s report and his work deserve the utmost credit, especially in the context of this parliamentary debate. I do not want the clear conclusions drawn in this report to be changed in the course of parliamentary debate.

Romania and Bulgaria have, so far, done all that has been in their power to do. They have achieved what the European Union wanted of them. They have implemented regulations in the economic, political and social fields and have instituted the principle of the rule of law. The European Union and the societies of both these countries will now assess these achievements. I think that it is extremely important to stress the extent of the progress made by both of these countries, which will allow them to say that they are entering the European Union with a confident stride.

During the period since 1 May 2004, countries such as mine have shown how to navigate accession to the European Union. I think that the success of that transition for both the old and the new Member States will convince those who remain sceptical. The fact that Great Britain not only had the generosity but also the sense to open its labour market immediately to people from Eastern Europe means that now, apart from Germany and Austria, which Mr Brok appears to have forgotten, many other European countries have followed in Britain’s footsteps.

I would like to say that it is extremely important to be able to trust that, having been introduced, the rules of the game will be applied, and then to assess the situation. Poland’s example shows that the introduction of the principles set out in the Copenhagen criteria can be a good omen, but that these principles also have to be implemented once the countries have joined the European Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are sticking to January 2007 as the date for accession, but attaching to that date conditions that must be satisfied by October. It is a winding road the Commission is pursuing here. It is clearly suffering under the burden of its own past mistakes. We are eager to see, Commissioner, how you will explain to us in October that the hurdles you have erected here today have now been overcome. It was a great mistake to set 2007 as the date for accession when it was still unclear whether it could ever be met. The Commission is now trying rather desperately to find a way out of this impasse into which it has got itself. Of course the proposal you have made today is sensible given the circumstances. That is why I am supporting it despite all its weaknesses.

I will confine myself to a few remarks about Romania, since I have been there with a CDU/CSU delegation. Under the leadership of President Basescu and Prime Minister Popescu-Tariceanu, a determined and serious reform process has begun there, affecting home affairs, the judiciary and the fight against corruption. It has not been completed yet. The conditions are not yet fully satisfied. The corruption trials have not yet been finally concluded, but they are seriously under way and it will take time. I think it is important that we send this government a signal to continue determinedly down this road to reform. That is important.

Romania is a European-minded country through and through. It will be a good ally for us in the European Union. There is a German minority there whose rights are satisfactorily enshrined in law. The law on minorities is an example to others. That is why, Commissioner, I would urge you to encourage the government to continue its process of reform.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Poul Nyrup Rasmussen (PSE). – Commissioner, I would like to express my respect for your work but, as with all work, it is also necessary to have clarity. My only problem today is the lack of clarity. You are saying that our goal is to get the two countries on board on 1 January 2007. That is what we are all looking for. I cannot see any fundamental reason not to let them in on 1 January.

So what we are really talking about is how we can promote further progress with those two countries as much as possible. The appeal I am making to you has already been mentioned by the chairman of my group, Mr Schulz, and by Mr Swoboda and other colleagues. If we seriously expect further progress in the next three and a half months, before your next report in October, what can be done in that time? What do we expect? A new State prosecutor in Bulgaria? No. To what extent does immunity need to be lifted? How many cases do we need to raise? How many decisions in court do we need? Do you see what I am getting at, Commissioner?

What we need now, if these countries are to work with us, is for you to be very precise. I have a suggestion to make to you. I propose that you make a scoreboard to present to the two new governments in Bulgaria and Romania, a precise scoreboard showing what we want of them in the next three and a half or four months in particular areas. It is not enough to say that we expect progress. It is very important to say what exactly we expect of them in justice and home affairs, so that the two governments know exactly what to do.

The second thing I want to ask of you, Commissioner, with all due respect, is that there should be no extra work later. As some members of the Bulgarian Government said to me recently, ‘We cannot change our constitution every other week’. What we really need now is to be precise in our demands. My final hope is that the June Council will take a clear decision. As Mr Moscovici said, it is time now to send a clear signal, and the June Council can send a clear signal that they are welcome on 1 January 2007 and that we look forward to working with them.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE). – (NL) Mr President, I am pleased with the Commission’s proposal because it does justice to Bulgaria’s and Romania’s efforts and also to the concerns about lasting problem areas, the existence of which, by the way, nobody denies.

To previous speakers, including Mr Cohn-Bendit, I should like to say that as far as I am concerned, this proposal is a shot in the arm for the reformers and thus a source of frustration for criminals, corrupt folk and xenophobes. Maybe Mr Cohn-Bendit ought to consider to whom he actually wishes to give his support. The notion that reforms will end as soon as those countries accede is nonsense. That notion was already mentioned during the previous enlargement and was disproved in the end. Moreover, reforms are first and foremost carried out by the people for the sake of improving the quality of life and not just for the sake of joining the European Union.

It is, of course, also true that we must, as a matter of urgency, have an instrument by means of which we can tick off all EU Members, including current EU Members, if they fail to adhere to the rules, also where fundamental rights are concerned. I should like to argue in favour of long-term vision, for we all know that this is not the end where reforms are concerned. Corruption, crime, discrimination against minorities, and suchlike must all be tackled, also in future. One day, Bulgaria and Romania may well lead from the front in the European Union, just as they also demonstrated that economically, they are capable of much more and much greater willingness to reform than us in Western Europe. Who knows, one day, they might be the champions of fundamental rights and rule of law and may well adopt a leading role in the European Union.

Finally, I should like to urge all Members in their own countries, to give the full account, rather than populist talk that is based on xenophobia. I will welcome Bulgaria and Romania on 1 January 2007.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Kinga Gál (PPE-DE). – (HU) Mr President, Commissioner, while I value your work, please allow me to ask you a question. Why has the one and a half million Hungarian population, one of the largest minorities in Europe, vanished from this report? All previous Commission reports, followed by the Parliament reports, called attention to the needs of the Hungarian community in Romania. This report hardly mentions it. We are pleased that, contrary to the preliminary news, it contains at least a general reference to the Minority Act.

Commissioner, I can state with certainty that the Hungarian population of Romania has not vanished since October 2005. The issues that Parliament had expressly found to be problematic have not disappeared, either. These are unresolved matters. And it is becoming increasingly clear that there is no political willingness, either, to resolve them; for instance, there is no willingness to adopt a Minority Act based on cultural autonomy. Or to ensure higher education in the Hungarian language. Or to enforce the principle of self-governance. Or to amend the discriminatory Elections Act.

Commissioner, the European institutions have a considerable responsibility to help the citizens of Romania, including the minorities, to recognise the possibilities provided by accession. Thus, the Hungarian community in Romania must also benefit from the European Union methods and techniques for the enforcement of interests. This needs support both from Bucharest and Brussels.

Brussels has not given much help to this community today. But it can still help, it can help this community to recognise the possibilities and acquire the techniques. This will be a precondition of the competitiveness of the European Community.

Therefore now, Commissioner, I will hand over to you the letter written by Members of the European Parliament, as well as, symbolically, a few of the thousands of letters written to you by people and civil organisations in Transylvania. We are, and I am, expecting a reply to these, too, in October.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Helmut Kuhne (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner Rehn, you have a pleasingly straightforward way of presenting your findings in plenary. I will therefore be equally straightforward in expressing my thanks to you. Thank you, and that without any flowery words hiding qualifications. So an unqualified thank you.

You have worked carefully, you have made the best of an unsatisfactory situation that is not primarily of your making. It would be difficult to question your findings and hence the grounds for your conclusions on the basis of the facts.

I therefore advise those who may be tempted to feel offended in the present situation not to be, but to set to work and complete the tasks that are still outstanding.

If in the autumn your report shows there are still deficits, the Commission should propose safeguard clauses. Parliament should then give the Commission its backing, although each of the two countries should be treated separately.

For me, however, this debate is also an occasion to draw further conclusions, over and beyond the two countries at issue. Some other Members have touched on it, and I will say it again quite clearly: there must never again be accession treaties without the accession conditions being fulfilled in their entirety.

Bulgaria and Romania in any case complete the list of 27 countries that were in the Nice catalogue, so to speak. There can only be further accessions if the European Union also does its homework and makes the necessary internal reforms to ensure its continued existence with more than 27 states.

 
  
  

IN THE CHAIR: MR DOS SANTOS
Vice-President

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Viktória Mohácsi (ALDE).(HU) Mr President, I am pleased that both countries have joined the Decade Programme, and they are doing everything they can to ensure that the Roma are integrated as soon as possible. However, the monitoring report describes abuses committed by the police and law enforcement authorities, in both countries. We must continue to monitor the problem areas mentioned.

Segregation in the education sector is already mentioned in the Bulgarian report, but I would very much like to see that this issue is given increased attention in the case of Romania, where the level of segregation is just as high. According to reports of certain civil organisations, 80% of children classed as having learning difficulties are Roma.

Even as recently as a week ago, on 9 May, I received a report of abuses committed by the police. The wounds inflicted on members of the Roma community by policemen of the Romanian authority can be seen on photographs. This is the third case that I heard of within the last six months.

In spite of this, I voted for the accession of both countries. However, the significant difference between the two countries is that while Bulgaria acknowledges the problems related to the Roma population, Romania would like to conceal and deny them. I call upon the Romanian colleagues, the Commission and the Commissioner to ask the competent authorities to change this policy!

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Camiel Eurlings (PPE-DE).(NL) Mr President, the enlargement is undeniably one of the EU’s biggest success stories. We do not realise enough what it means to those countries to belong to the community of values, often after decades of tyranny, but also what it means to the old countries. We would have always been worse off had the enlargement not been so successful. In order to gain and maintain support for this enlargement, though, it is necessary that it should take place in a credible manner and that the criteria should not be tampered with.

Bulgaria and Romania belong in the EU, but those criteria are important if we want to hold onto public support, if we want the enlargement to reinforce, rather than weaken, the community of values, and last but not least, those criteria are important for the citizens of Romania and Bulgaria, and that is why I would say to Mr Watson, who spoke a moment ago, but also to my fellow countrywoman, Mrs in 't Veld, that adhering to criteria is in fact, not against, but in favour of, enlargement.

Turning to the Commission’s present proposal, if one considers the level of progress there, then I think that the pressure tactic has so far worked, particularly in Romania, where Mrs Macovei, in her capacity as justice minister has achieved more in a short space of time than the Nastase administration in previous years. That is worth a huge compliment. At the same time, we must realise that more pressure is needed. Yet more change is needed in Romania, but particularly in Bulgaria, where some developments appear to have been more negative than anything else.

In the light of the need for persistent pressure, the Commission’s approach is the best one. If we say that 2007 will be the year, then that would take the pressure off, but if we say that 2008 will be the year, then that would equally take the pressure off, for then people will know that they can join in 2008 come what may and that they can rest on their laurels. Dangling the carrot of 2007 as still being a possibility, is important, provided this is done under three conditions.

First of all, the Council should not state that October is too late to decide. Secondly, if the countries are not up to scratch, we should really be able to say in October that they cannot join in January 2007. Thirdly, if we really talk about credibility, then we should dare assess each country on their own merit and one country should not become the victim of the other. That would therefore mean that Bulgaria and Romania would be separated and assessed individually in October.

I would thank you and would once again like to congratulate the Commission on the line it is currently taking.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Miguel Ángel Martínez Martínez (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, twenty years ago, like the Bulgarians and Romanians are doing now, we were finishing negotiations for Spain’s integration into the Community. I recall our efforts to adapt to the Treaties and I recall the humiliation, in the face of obstacles, of leaders who at the time appeared to be much less committed than us to the project. However I remember, above all, the solidarity of many, their respect and their understanding.

A few years later, having learned from this experience and as President of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, I gave my full support at the Bulgaria and Romania Council, as a first step in the process that will now culminate in their integration into the European Union.

The Commission has put forward a report that is generally positive, but acknowledges some shortcomings. This is the Commission’s role. Parliament’s role, as an eminently political body of the Union, has to be different. As we represent our people, we must understand and support the people of Bulgaria and Romania, understand their difficulties and, by confirming their accession date for 1 January 2007, help them to gradually resolve the shortcomings found.

Our role is above all to understand that in Bulgaria and Romania there are two peoples with deep Europeanist convictions, much more so than the majority of the Member States, whom we therefore really need in order to move forward with the European Union project culminating in the Constitution.

Nothing would be more negative than to frustrate aspirations, spread uncertainty and mistrust and make Romanians and Bulgarians feel mistreated and discriminated against. Because we need them and because they are going to be the best of us, Parliament must give its full support to their accession on the planned date. This is the approach of my Socialist Group, the ultimate in solidarity, and of the Spanish socialists, given our own experience and the hopes and commitments that we share with the Bulgarians and Romanians.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Charles Tannock (PPE-DE). – Mr President, enlargement is truly one of the great stories of the EU. The fifth wave, which enlarged the Union to 25 Member States in 2004, has actually been a great success, in spite of many dire warnings that the Union would be paralysed without a Constitution and that countries such as mine would suffer unsustainable immigration flows, including from the Roma population. The new Member States have, broadly speaking, become more Atlanticist, they believe in free markets and low taxation as an approach, which I welcome. I believe that the accession of Romania and Bulgaria, which is really the fifth-and-a-half wave as initially they were supposed to join at the same time as the other 10 new Member States, will also prove to be a great success.

I still believe that the carrot of EU membership has proven the great driver of economic and political reform. Nevertheless, I do not underestimate the scale of the tasks that will face those two countries after joining in 2007. There is still a need for them to not lower their guards against public corruption, and some high-level indictments and convictions will certainly be a powerful example to deter further corruption.

The problem of organised crime has been mentioned – people trafficking and drug trafficking are still serious issues. Bulgaria seems to have made less progress, with a spate of horrendous mafia-style contract killings, which are of major concern to all of us. It is fair to say that organised crime is still a problem, even in some of our current Member States, such as southern Italy. That in itself cannot be a cause to delay Romanian and Bulgarian accession any further, although there is a case to be made for invoking the one-year safeguard clauses in regard to particular chapters such as justice and home affairs.

Let me raise two specific issues. Firstly, I call on Romania to settle its outstanding maritime border dispute with Ukraine over Snake Island. Ukraine, hopefully, will also be a Member State of the European Union one day. Secondly, I call upon the Romanian Government to reconsider its absolute ban on inter-country adoptions.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Catherine Guy-Quint (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, I should like straight away to thank the Commissioner for this new report, which is a very rigorous piece of administrative work on the part of the Commission. However, this very rigour is leading the Commission again to postpone its decision on Bulgaria’s and Romania’s accession date. In spite of the dynamism shown by these countries and although all the signs still point towards accession, the report expresses serious reservations. Once again, you recommend them to continue with their efforts in a wide variety of areas: agricultural administration, the monitoring of Community expenditure and the fight against crime, corruption and fraud. Moreover, those who have spoken in this House have added to this list: the integration of minorities, international adoption and the control of customs contraband. In my opinion, it does need to be acknowledged that Bulgaria and Romania are not alone in having these types of problem. Current events in Europe demonstrate every day how Europe falls short in all these areas.

Why then, Mr Rehn, should new demands constantly be added to the accession criteria? Why postpone a decision that gave rise to fewer difficulties for the ten countries that acceded last time round? With this decision in view, you are being extremely cautious, and this will have an impact on Bulgarians’ and Romanians’ hopes as they anticipate the outcome of the decision. For a year now, we have been aware of the consequences of nations’ despair as they contemplate Europe’s future. With each consecutive report, the Commission multiplies the demands associated with the accession criteria to be fulfilled, then backs off when faced with having to take a decision. With each consecutive report, the Bulgarian and Romanian nations feel humiliated, despite the fact that they are making progress. The people of those countries have ever more doubts about their right to occupy a place in our European democracy. With each report that is published, populism gains ground. The moment has therefore come to take a clear and courageous decision about Bulgaria’s and Romania’s date of entry into the EU. In our opinion, this should be 1 January 2007, for these two countries are essential to a genuine European Union project.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  David Casa (PPE-DE)(MT) Mr President and Commissioner Rehn. In my last speech on Bulgaria's process of accession into the European Union, I said that there was still a great deal of work to be done and a lot of reform to be implemented. I mentioned organised crime and the trafficking of babies towards Western countries. It appears that the Bulgarian authorities are addressing these two problems, although there needs to be more consistency if we want to see more concrete results. I am informed that, apart from corruption which is deeply rooted, there is as yet not enough control on drug trafficking, especially of heroin from Afghanistan as some have already mentioned before me, which is being sold to northern European countries at astronomical prices. The Chairman of the Bulgarian National Assembly, George Pirinski, said earlier this week that the European Union should use the same scale of measurement as it did with the ten countries that joined in the last enlargement. I think that all of us can assure Mr Pirinski and the people of Bulgaria that not only will the European Union ensure that this same scale of measurement is used, but that it will do all that is possible to help Bulgaria reach its necessary criteria. We should also add, however, that the European Union will never accept any candidate country, be it Bulgaria or Romania, Croatia or Turkey, as a Member of the European Union if they do not satisfy the accession criteria. I am sorry to say, for example, that the reform in the judicial system has not made as much progress as was necessary, and certain things still need to be clarified, including the independence of the Judiciary. There is a long way to go before we reach where we want to arrive. Finally, I think, Mr President, that the Bulgarian authorities should take this opportunity to continue implementing the necessary reforms in the shortest time possible. In this way, we can welcome them here among us in 2007. Thank you very much.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Józef Pinior (PSE).(PL) Mr President, the preparations for the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union are taking place during a period of crisis in Europe. Heightened populist and anti-immigration sentiments are just some of the things that have contributed to this crisis. According to recent Eurobarometer surveys, around 53% of Europeans view the enlargement process with indifference, fear, irritation or frustration. At the same time, however, we have to remember that according to these surveys, the majority – 55% – still have a positive attitude towards enlargement.

Bulgaria and Romania must not fall victim to the European crisis. We cannot increase the barriers to membership because of the emotional state of the electorate. We should not demand any more or less of Bulgaria or Romania than of other countries which took part in the accession process in previous years. We should accept and acknowledge the balanced report by the Commission, presented today by President Barroso and Commissioner Rehn. The European Union wants to uphold its obligations concerning the accession of Bulgaria and Romania on 1 January 2007. At the same time, and in order not to delay the accession date, both countries should fulfil all the criteria for joining the European Union.

I would also like to express my admiration for the efforts made by society in Bulgaria and Romania on the path to joining the European Union, and for the work and commitment of judges, prosecutors, teachers, politicians, journalists and civil activists during the last few months. I would like to say that I am convinced that this effort will bear fruit for Bulgaria and Romania next year in the form of European Union membership.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Zbigniew Zaleski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, as far as the criteria to be fulfilled by the two countries are concerned, everything has already been said. I would like to draw your attention to three other aspects.

First of all, let us remember that building normality in Western Europe, in spite of democracy and significant aid from the USA, took a long time. Secondly, the Union has made the decision to accept these two countries and has set a date, which I think constitutes an obligation on the part of such an important political institution. Thirdly, have we, as the European Union, given enough assistance to these countries with respect to achieving these standards?

If Bulgaria and Romania were today located in the Pacific, we could wait for the criteria to be fulfilled, but seeing as they are in Europe, we cannot remain indifferent. The Commission needs to play an active role, as do the Council and Parliament. I do not see any other solution. I would also like to add that Bulgaria and Romania are naturally a part of Europe, they are natural members of Europe, part of this body, and our common duty should be to integrate these two countries into one body.

As my speech has been quite short and I have saved some time, I should merely like to conclude by telling our colleague Mr Cohn-Bendit, who so vehemently criticised the Polish Government, that he also had the opportunity to judge his Chancellor, who represented an EU Member State for many years, on how he behaved just before leaving office.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (PSE). – (HU) Mr President, the delegation of the Hungarian Socialist Party supports the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union on 1 January 2007. This has been our recommendation all along, while not forgetting the numerous justified criticisms and recommendations.

Our support obviously cannot mean that the Romanian and Bulgarian government are released from their obligation to do everything in their power to eliminate the deficiencies listed in previous and current reports of the European Commission and the European Parliament. Hungary will do its best to help them in this respect.

However, I do not understand the latest report of the European Commission, of Mr Olli Rehn, which has almost entirely forgotten about the issue of minorities. Could it be that the problems raised earlier have been resolved over the past six months?

The European Commission should call to account Romania, in the spirit of the previous decisions of the government, for failing to adopt the Minority Act, to return church property and to establish a state-financed Hungarian language university.

Mr Olli Rehn, I do not ask for anything more than what you described in your October 2005 report. Commissioner, you recently stated that we cannot demand of Romania more than what we are demanding of current Member States, while in your earlier statements your starting point was different. The situation has not changed; has your position changed?

This inconsistency is only explained in part by the fact that there are no European standards for minority rights. Therefore in the future, the starting point should always be the situation of the country in question. It is wrong to refer to old Member States, some of which – and I do not wish to single out France – deny even the existence of minorities, and if they were to apply for accession to the European Union today, they would be definitely turned down.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Fernand Le Rachinel (NI). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, which is scheduled for January 2007, could be postponed due to the corruption that the Commission would have us believe is rife in those two countries. Such concern is altogether commendable. Before they start preaching, however, ought not some of our governments, including the one in France, to first put their own houses in order?

Romania and Bulgaria are authentic European nations and are all the more worthy for having been subjected to the Turkish occupation between the 16th and 19th centuries, and then Communism from 1945 to 1990. That is why we are putting them on their guard against another form of oppression, which is less brutal but just as dangerous: the Europe of Brussels, which has no borders, destroys our national freedoms and identities and opens its gates to Islamic Turkey by denying the Christian origins of our civilisation. Since the vote cast by the people of France and of the Netherlands in 2005, that version of Europe no longer has any democratic legitimacy. It is time that all the European nations came together to build another Europe, the Europe of nations.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Anna Ibrisagic (PPE-DE). – (SV) Romania and Bulgaria have been promised EU membership as from 1 January 2007. They have signed the accession agreement, and we have sent signals to Romania and Bulgaria to the effect that they are doing a good job and that, if they continue to work hard, they will also become members in accordance with the timetable.

Meanwhile, there have been a number of developments in Europe that have nothing to do with Romania and Bulgaria but that have strongly influenced public opinion, including on the issue of these two countries’ membership. Romania and Bulgaria were promised membership before scepticism about continued enlargement began to spread, before a number of European countries voted against the draft EU Constitution and before the fear of social tourism began to spread in the old Europe. The fact that these fears are unjustified and the fact that current political leaders did not manage to explain this and give people a sense of optimism are clear signs that there is a serious lack of leadership in today’s Europe. That is not, however, something for which Romania and Bulgaria should pay the price.

I am both surprised and perturbed about the fact that no one in this House today has pointed out that enlargement is really about security. The majority of countries in the Balkans are in the throes of forming nation states, which is a difficult and delicate process that could come to grief at any time and that has to be handled with both sensitivity and knowledge. In such a situation, it would not be sensible to postpone Romania’s and Bulgaria’s entry into the EU, particularly because it would most certainly divert both attention and energy from much more complicated issues in the region such as the status of Kosovo, the referendum in Montenegro and the status of that country and the constitutional changes under way right now in Bosnia. Romania and Bulgaria have done a good job. Hard work is needed, and both countries will work hard in the future too, just as other countries did during their first period as EU Member States. For the sake of security in Europe, it would, however, be best if the EU were to fulfil its commitments to Romania and Bulgaria and otherwise focus its efforts on the other, much more sensitive issues that have to be solved in the Balkan region in the course of the year.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Arlene McCarthy (PSE). – Commissioner, I have a personal dilemma: I represent a country that is pro-enlargement but a region that is urging me to vote against Bulgarian membership. Why? Because my constituent, Michael Shields, is serving a ten-year sentence for a violent attack of which he continues to maintain he is innocent.

The Bulgarian criminal justice system has not given Michael a fair trial. His only recourse is to take his case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. When new defence evidence came forward, it was ignored by the Bulgarian authorities; when another Liverpool man confessed to the crime, it was disregarded by the Bulgarians. I urge the Bulgarian authorities to restore our faith in their criminal justice system.

I urge the Commissioner to ask the authorities to take up the offer of assistance by the UK to interview witnesses and examine pre- and post-trial evidence that was rejected in his appeal. Any EU Member States, including mine, can make mistakes. The true test of a democracy is the will to redress any potential wrongs and ensure that real justice is served.

Commissioner, I will send you a copy of this independent documentary, which shows that my constituent did not have a fair trial and that there was a severe problem with the police investigation.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. Mr President, it is not a question of my timetable, but of media deadlines in Bulgaria and Romania. I trust you will be sympathetic to this excuse, because we have to get the right message across tonight to both Bulgaria and Romania, where we are heading with President Barroso immediately after this sitting to pass on the message of encouragement. We shall be rolling up our sleeves to tackle the remaining shortcomings.

I would like to thank you for a very constructive and responsible debate, which also reflects the wide range of views in European civil society. That is, of course, the role of Parliament.

In this debate I sense overall support for the Commission’s basic approach, which is that the target accession date of January 2007 should be possible, on condition that the countries can address the remaining shortcomings. Yes, some are more in favour than others and opinions differ as to the conditions, but the overall tone of the debate has been very clear and I can say that the Commission is in favour of the target and of sticking strictly to the conditions.

In order to have a real dialogue, I would like to comment on the points raised in various speeches. First of all, it has been said that the conditions that remain must be achievable. I fully agree with that. We would not propose a final review of whether the conditions have been met in October if we did not believe that it is feasible for the countries to meet the remaining criteria.

At the same time, it is clear that, as guardian of the treaties, we cannot recommend something that does not exist. We have to see that the conditions are really fulfilled, especially in the field of terrorism and the fight against corruption and organised crime. Otherwise, we would not be up to our task.

Secondly, there has been a request for a concrete ‘to-do’ list or scoreboard for the countries so that they know what is expected of them. I agree. This is included in the Commission’s report and both countries are fully aware of the expectations and of the remaining criteria. That is precisely why President Barroso and I are going to Bucharest and Sofia today and tomorrow. We shall discuss what is expected of both Bulgaria and Romania.

Moreover, we have to trust in the political maturity of the governments, parliaments and administrations of these countries for them to know what the Copenhagen political and economic criteria and the acquis criteria mean, and plan their roadmaps of reform on the basis of these well-established criteria, which form the basis of our crystal clear report.

I can give you a very precise example of one area in which we and Bulgaria and Romania have an interest in the countries fulfilling the conditions by the accession date, and that is that Community money should be properly spent and accounted for, which, I trust, is close to the heart of this House – at least it was when I was a member of the Committee on Budgetary Control. Bulgaria needs to establish the integrated administration and control system in agriculture in order to implement the provisions and funding of the common agricultural policy. This means that it needs to take aerial photographs of all the parcels of land, digitise them and block them into a system that links them to the owners. If this is not done, I am afraid we will have to withhold direct payments under the common agricultural policy. This should work as a very strong incentive to redress this shortcoming. I hope this example is concrete enough, but I could give you dozens of other precise examples of what still needs to be done in various areas of the Union’s policy and acquis.

Finally, Mr Van Orden said that no reference was made in the Commission’s report to the recommendation of a possible postponement, which is one of the provisions of the accession treaty. To avoid any confusion or misunderstanding, this compels me say that in fact, in the conclusion of the Commission’s report adopted just three hours ago, we say that by early October we shall assess whether the two countries have been able to address the remaining shortcomings and on that basis we shall adopt a position as to whether the proposed accession date can be adhered to. This means, in clear English or other Community languages, that the Commission reserves the right to consider the use of this safeguard clause of postponement unless the shortcomings are addressed in the next five months, which is, as I said, fully achievable for both countries if they really make an effort.

Our goal is the accession of Bulgaria and Romania in 2007 and our duty is to see that both countries join when they meet the conditions and are fully prepared to join the European Union. This is also a matter of the famous absorption capacity of the European Union. That is the best way to make the enlargement a success for Bulgaria, Romania and Europe. I trust that you will support the Commission in this objective.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Árpád Duka-Zólyomi (PPE-DE). – (HU) Mr President, 1 January 2007 is fast approaching, but the uncertainty seems to be here to stay. In Romania, in spite of the commendable efforts of the current government, there are still many serious problems waiting to be solved. The Copenhagen criteria, as in the past, apply to all candidate states equally.

Alongside the need for the reform of the judiciary and for restraining corruption and organised crime, the issues related to the observance of human rights and the guarantee of legal certainty for minorities are raising doubts. There have been several positive changes in respect of the latter, which have been significantly aided by the presence in legislation and government of the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania (RMDSZ), the political representation of the Hungarian community in Romania.

However, it is mistaken to think that, as Commissioner Olli Rehn has stated, the participation of the RMDSZ in the government coalition is sufficient to guarantee the legal certainty of minorities. The political party representing the Hungarian community will never be in majority, and results can only be achieved with the help of the Romanian majority parties and their willingness to compromise.

As a consequence of the lack of rational political will, a few basic problems are still waiting to be solved. Why is the adoption of the Minority Act delayed? Also, the mother-tongue university education of the indigenous Hungarian community, in the form of an independent Hungarian institution of higher education, has still not been resolved. Another unresolved issue is the restitution of church property. The current Election Act, which is discriminatory against national and ethnic communities, should also be amended, in line with European standards.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is imperative that the issue of minorities is given appropriate importance in the report of the Commission. What would be the right decision in the circumstances, when the Council has already promised Romania European Union membership from 1 January? The rational bridging solution would be to apply a close 3-year monitoring system. This would obviously need a precise drafting of the indispensable sanctions and of the conditions of safeguard clause activation.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Mia De Vits (PSE). – (NL) Mr President, the fact that neither Bulgaria nor Romania have completely finished their homework should not come as a surprise to anyone, for it is a Herculean task. The two countries should not, though, become the victim of the Union’s internal problems or of a lack of solidarity. I heard the Commissioner also mention ‘absorption capacity’. I really do not know the criteria against which this would have to be verified. Also, I think that the agreements that have been reached should actually be implemented. When our parliamentary committee visited Sofia, we saw for ourselves how much effort people are making in order to achieve the goal, and I think that we should support the reformers.

The Commissioner tells us that specific examples will be given of what precisely will be expected of those countries. We really hope that they will be, that the criteria will be detailed and, above all, that those who are politically responsible in those countries will be backed in any way possible so that they can keep to the 1 January 2007 deadline. The Commission should not hide behind the Council any longer. It should come to us with a clear opinion.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Georgios Papastamkos (PPE-DE).(EL) Mr President, I should like by way of introduction to express my appreciation of the European Commission for the valuable work which it has presented to us today.

Ladies and gentlemen, the accession of Bulgaria and Romania does not raise questions of political, economic or cultural geography for the European Union. Certainly there are deficits in institutional and administrative adaptation, especially in areas relating to the European area of freedom, security and justice. However, we should not overlook the fact that the order to adapt is ongoing. It is inherent in and directs relations between the European Union and a Member State. The crucial question, in my opinion, has to do with weighing the costs and benefits for the European Union in the event that accession is postponed. I believe that there will be a cost to the very credibility of the European Union. It will demonstrate a lack of ability to assimilate on its part. Just a few months before accession, the European Union should not send a negative message of postponement to the people of Bulgaria and Romania.

The accession of these two countries will strengthen the homogenisation of the economic area of southeast Europe and, at the same time, will encourage the process of political and economic convergence of the Western Balkans on its path towards integration in the Union. In other words, there will also be a positive spill-over effect for the Western Balkans.

The message that we must send to Bulgaria and Romania is a message to intensify regulatory work in the period of time remaining. To the extent that European governance – European multilevel governance – affects national unification or de-unification, we have only one option: a creative convergence of opinions which will allow the move from a European Union of the 25 to a European Union of the 27. The way forward is politically preordained. Let us make sure it is institutionally prepared on 1 January 2007.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Panagiotis Beglitis (PSE).(EL) Mr President, I believe that today's valuable report on Bulgaria and Romania presented to us by the Commission sets out in the most objective and fair manner the serious progress made by both Romania and Bulgaria during the final period to adapt to the acquis communautaire.

I believe that, with this report, the Commission does not underestimate the progress or overestimate the shortcomings of the two countries and I believe that this balanced appraisal of the current situation in both countries by the Commission lends credibility to the European Commission in defending the strategy of enlargement, which we must all defend, and makes a constructive contribution to efforts by both countries to complete the reforms.

The message which Europe is sending today is, in my opinion, loud and clear. It contains an incentive and a warning: the incentive of accession on 1 January 2007 in accordance with the timetable and the warning that this objective will be achieved if both countries intensify their efforts in accordance with the final report which will be presented by the Commission.

Today, Mr President, the responsibility for the final outcome rests with the governments and political forces in these two countries.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ari Vatanen (PPE-DE). – Mr President, it is a pity that the Commissioner had to go because now our immortal speeches will not make an impact on the EU’s future, but never mind. We have to congratulate him on a good job under very difficult conditions.

Today we have to play tough but fair, and I underline the word ‘fair’, because we are not talking about the three months to come, we are talking about three generations. That is what we need to focus on. I am not about to underestimate the problems those two countries are facing, whether it be criminality, corruption, the judicial system or minorities, be they Roma or Hungarians, but we have to remember where those countries have come from. They have come a long way.

That is what Finland has done over the last 50 years. Look at the fantastic progress Portugal has made in 20 years. Today we must say ‘no’ to populism and ‘yes’ to vision. We must say ‘yes’ to leadership, because the progress of those countries towards harmonisation in the bigger European family depends on political will. It depends on our will to build a more stable world. Let me remind you that we would not have had the Balkans tragedy if those countries had had the hope of joining the EU 20 years ago. This is the power of enlargement, and we must see the bigger picture and not indulge in populism.

We have lots of ways of monitoring safeguard clauses, even sanctions, to keep an eye on progress, but it is essential for us to support democratic forces in those countries. We must support those who want to enforce the rule of law. That is what matters and we must believe that the democratic forces will win. Our moral duty today is to give people horizons – not borders.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Pia Elda Locatelli (PSE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, nothing has been said in this debate about the acquis communautaire with regard to equality between men and women; a guilty silence that sadly reflects the scant attention paid to this issue. Nevertheless, women in Romania have made great strides in the field of education: young women have a higher level of education than young men; in 2005, almost 55% of graduates were female, and women represent 40% of university lecturers.

These data indicate the potential of the Romanian female population, but that potential is being frustrated in the political sphere, in which men completely dominate all levels of decision making. Another positive finding concerns the commitment made to secure more resources and administrative autonomy for the Romanian Agency for Equal Opportunities.

Other measures have been undertaken in Bulgaria: the National Council for Equal Opportunities has been set up under the Prime Minister’s Office; the government has signed the optional protocol of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW); and with the recent elections, Bulgaria has become much closer to the European average in terms of the number of women present in parliament and in government.

There certainly remains much to be done in terms of ensuring that there is genuine equality between men and women in the two countries, but the sooner Romania and Bulgaria become part of the EU, the faster this journey towards equality will be. I am therefore in favour of their accession on 1 January 2007.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, I represent Poland, a recent member of the European Union. The memory of the large effort made by our country, the work of the citizens but also of the politicians and the civil service aimed at adapting to the exacting standards of the European Union, is still fresh in our minds. That is why I can appreciate the tremendous effort made by Bulgaria and Romania to implement reforms in preparation for integration.

I therefore think that the European Commission should not delay the decision concerning the date of accession of both of these countries to the Community. Maintaining 1 January 2007 as the date of accession will be a sign of solidarity and an acknowledgement of the hard work that has been done by these two countries. Maintaining this date is all the more important because a change may be interpreted as an attempt to block or even reject the application for accession of both these countries, especially as we have recently witnessed protectionist tendencies within the European Union, or in other words moves to prevent access to the benefits of a common market and truly free movement of persons and services.

I am aware that there are certain shortcomings which have been rightly pointed out by the European Commission in its report. I do believe, however, that the best way of overcoming these shortcomings is for the European Union and the European Commission to put pressure on the Bulgarian and Romanian governments to dispel all doubts and to solve all problems within the next six months. Indeed, I am thoroughly convinced that a clear and stable prospect of joining the Union is the best motivation for Bulgaria and Romania to make an additional effort and meet all the accession criteria. I am also convinced that, just as the enlargement of the European Union two years ago by 10 countries proved to be a political and economic success, the accession of Bulgaria and Romania on 1 January 2007 will prove to be equally successful.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE). – Mr President, this afternoon a very important event took place in Constanza County in Romania: the official opening of protected homes for over 100 people who currently live in unsatisfactory conditions. It came about as a partnership between the local county council, the Romanian Government and two Irish NGOs – Focus on Romania and the Aurelia Trust.

There has been a lot of debate – indeed, dispute – in this House about how Romania is caring for its most vulnerable children and young adults with handicaps. If that focus has helped to improve – as I believe it has – the plight of these people, then it will all have been worthwhile, even if it has upset the authorities.

Last week a report by Mental Disability Rights International caused huge concern and outrage because it outlined serious abuses in Romanian institutions. Today, that report is being discredited by some, perhaps too sweepingly.

The problem of trafficking has been identified by the Commission, and all Member States – including my own country, Ireland – need to play their part to stop this cruel and horrific trade in vulnerable human beings.

Perhaps, as Commissioner Rehn has outlined, we will resolve all these problems by October 2006, but these two countries must accede.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Panayiotis Demetriou (PPE-DE).(EL) Mr President, it has been accepted by everyone that both Bulgaria and Romania have done a great deal in the direction of their accession to the European Union and I am delighted because the European Union is remaining firm in its position on the 'yes' it has given these two countries.

Of course there are shortcomings. There are shortcomings in all countries before their accession to the European Union, but they remedy them. I am certain that both Bulgaria and Romania will use the time they have, working day and night, to demonstrate that they are in a position to take what we have promised them: the 'January train' for their accession and their unification with the European family. This is the historic challenge and I am sure that, with our and the Commission's and everyone else's help, these people will prove that they are big and will join the big family of the European Union on 1 January 2007.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President. The debate is closed.

Written Statements (Rule 142)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE-DE). – (FR) I should like to highlight a problem that is very distressing in human terms: that of the adoption of Romanian children by European couples.

By means of a moratorium dated June 2001, the Romanian authorities banned all international adoptions, except in exceptional circumstances: the adoption of siblings, of children aged over 6 years or of disabled children.

Despite the fact that they were among the authorised exceptions, several dozen adoption applications have been left pending since being reviewed in 2001.

Thus, 800 European families have been waiting for more than five years to adopt their children, even though their adoption applications had been validated prior to June 2001 by the Romanian adoption committee.

These children know their adoptive parents and have a bond with them. They are now suffering from abandonment for a second time. What have become of the best interests of the child?

In December 2005, the European Parliament called on Romania to deal with these adoption application cases as quickly as possible, but no breakthrough has been observed up to now.

All international adoption applications are systematically rejected. In March, applications submitted before the moratorium of June 2001 were rejected once again.

Does the European Commission plan to put pressure on the Romanian Government so that a fair and humane solution might quickly be found in the interest of the children and of the adoptive families?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE-DE).(FR) In its communication of 25 October 2006, the European Commission highlighted ‘gaps in the preparation for membership which are of serious concern’.

I will mention two main examples: corruption, which remains a serious problem that may threaten the internal market, and the substantial difficulties in implementing an effective system of financial management and control that enables the Structural Funds to be executed.

There can be no denying the progress made or Bulgaria's and Romania's desire to join. Nevertheless, I doubt that the gaps of serious concern highlighted by the European Commission can be filled by the date on which these countries are due to join, 1 January 2007.

With the arrival of the ten new Member States, socio-economic disparities have doubled in the enlarged Union, while the 15 are not stimulating European growth, their economic performance remaining rather average. Therefore, before we contemplate the accession of new countries, should not we first think about consolidating the Union of 25 Member States?

I do not believe, therefore, that the European Union, Bulgaria or Romania will be ready by 2007. That is why I am calling on the Council not to confuse speed with haste when looking ahead to these countries’ accession.

 
Legal notice - Privacy policy