Proposition 51K2392

Projet de loi portant assentiment au Traité entre le Royaume de Belgique, la République tchèque, le Royaume de Danemark, la République fédérale d'Allemagne, la République d'Estonie, la République hellénique, le Royaume d'Espagne, la République française, l'Irlande, la République italienne, la République de Chypre, la République de Lettonie, la République de Lituanie, le Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, la République de Hongrie, la République de Malte, le Royaume des Pays-Bas, la République d'Autriche, la République de Pologne, la République portugaise, la République de Slovénie, la République slovaque, la République de Finlande, le Royaume de Suède, le Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande du Nord (Etats membres de l'Union européenne) et la République de Bulgarie et de la Roumanie, relatif à l'adhésion de la République de Bulgarie et de la Roumanie à l'Union européenne, au Protocole, à l'Acte, et à l'Acte final, faits à Luxembourg le 25 avril 2005.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

Feb. 10, 2006

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Bulgaria European Union Romania EU Accession Treaty international agreement accession to the European Union enlargement of the Union

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

FN VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

⚠️ Possible data error ⚠️

This proposition could possibly include unrelated discussions due to a heuristic extraction bug in propositions prior to 2007. As soon as I've got time to fix it, these will be removed when they're not supposed to be here.

Discussion ¶

April 20, 2006 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, let me first and above all make a few observations, which in fact do not really delight me. Their

Today we are talking about the enlargement of the European Union with two countries: Romania and Bulgaria. Both countries are almost as large as France. In other words, it is about expanding the territory of the Union with a very large piece in what is commonly called the Balkans. And this, Mr. Speaker, is happening in this Chamber, do not blame me for putting it in dialect, between the soup and the potatoes.

I think it’s too early, at four o’clock after five.

It is a determination that can be made. There is very little interest.

The [...]

It comes from the Senate, dear colleague.

It was scheduled this week in the Foreign Affairs Committee and your party did not discuss the matter.

It comes from the Senate. I repeat: this happens between the soup and potatoes. This is evident from the interest of the colleagues and ⁇ that of the majority, but much worse, from the interest of the government. I know, Mr. Speaker, that the government is a college and that any minister can speak on behalf of the government. However, do not blame me: when it comes to the expansion of the European Union with two not insignificant countries who are in a situation that one could euphemically call "critical", then at least the Minister of Foreign Affairs could be here. Furthermore, he can still appeal to a few other colleagues who are as if his criminal servants, if I may use that word in that case, are acolytes in the original meaning of the word.

Coming from you, Mr. De Gucht should be ⁇ pleased!

It is also so. In any case, it is Mrs. Laruelle who is here. I have the utmost respect for this lady, but she has nothing to do with foreign policy. I am convinced that if we were to ask her questions about the clauses of the enlargement, she would not really be at home there, with yet another euphemism. I would like to regret that. In this country, where the capital of the EU is located, European politics is treated in a way that is not anything else. Their

The most principled question to be asked then is whether the countries concerned belong to Europe. Will we now bring into the EU countries that do not belong to it? Unfortunately, this is the case with Turkey. Since attempts are made in that direction, one must at least check whether candidate members belong to us. I mean, in principle, home to Europe. With this I mean Europe, whose whole entity is determined by geography, history, geography, by a common culture, which is determined by a common vision of life, a common worldview of its citizens on the world, even though the visions of these different citizens are so diverse.

If I should follow the American Huntington in his controversial book "The Clash of the Civilizations", I should say that Bulgaria and Romania are not part of it, because according to Huntington, Orthodox countries do not belong to the West, not to Europe, they form a different entity.

Huntington is not European. He lives far from here and as an American he may be much less familiar with the history and culture of our continent. In my opinion, Orthodox countries are, by definition, as European as other Christian countries or as other countries that now appeal to freedom of mind. There is nothing on-European to Orthodoxy, on the contrary. The Orthodoxy meant for Europe an added value to culture. I refer to the art of the icons and the Orthodox church music which is part of the European cultural heritage.

Indeed, the Orthodox culture, Orthodoxy finds its original source in a city that was formerly called Byzantium or Constantinople and since 1453 has become Istanbul.

In 1453, the city was conquered by peoples from Central Asia. However, this does not prevent the city from being an ancient European capital, and the religion that originated in these cities is partly determining what I would dare to call the European, cultural soul.

In other words, for us, Bulgaria and Romania belong indeed to Europe, much more than the part of the Middle East, of Asia Minor, which we are necessarily suppressed. I mean Turkey, of course.

The question, of course, is how it is with the other criteria, except the principle.

Mr. Speaker, it was once intended in 2004, at the time of the European Union’s enlargement to ten countries, not to go to the accession of ten new members, but to twelve new Member States. However, it soon turned out that Romania and Bulgaria could not keep up with the reform pace of then and now. The two countries were disconnected. The target date was postponed: first from 2004 to 2006, now to 2007 or even to 1 January 2008, but that is the very last shift.

By the above-mentioned date, when the present draft will be approved, not only by us, but nevertheless also by us, Romania and Bulgaria will be the 26th and 27th Member States of the European Union.

The so-called exclusion clause is not new and comes on top of the general and special safeguard clause from the accession treaties with what is called Laken-10. This indicates that there are quite a few reservations about whether Bulgaria and Romania are really ready. Bulgaria is concerned about corporate law, freedom of service and, above all, corruption. For Romania, the list was initially significantly longer. In the past months, the last year actually, the list has been shortened a bit, because it is alleged that there is a significant improvement on the legal level in Romania, both in the fight against crime in general and in the fight against corruption.

It is important to emphasize that the delay can only be one year. Apparently, the European Commission and thus also the Belgian government assume that the shortcomings I have listed here are of a very temporary nature. Their

By the way, that deferral is not evidence, since this must be decided unanimously, except for Romania, for which there are a number of other rules that should ensure that it can be organized somehow. Their

I would like to ask if the government has a position. I expressly ask this question to you, Mrs. Laruelle. Does the government have a position on the possible postponement to 2008? It is currently on 1 January 2007. However, it can be postponed by one year. In my opinion, this is too short. It can be postponed. However, I would like to hear what the government’s position on this issue is. The next question is as fundamental as the first. It relates to the European being of the countries concerned. Are these countries ready? Does it meet the Copenhagen criteria? The Copenhagen criteria, I would like to remind them very briefly, assume a stable democracy that guarantees the rule of law, respects human rights, protects minorities and a functioning market economy plus, not insignificantly, the acceptance of the common rules, standards and policies that form the corpus of EU law. Their

It is generally assumed that both countries, and in particular Bulgaria, do not meet these criteria at all. This is not contradicted by anyone. Everyone knows that it is so. In fact, everyone knows that even on January 1, 2008 it will still be the same. Their

Mrs. Minister, I repeat, I ask you specifically for the government’s position on that possible delay and that even on 1 January 2008 there will be no possibility to assume that the Copenhagen criteria are met.

In other words, we are here once again in favor of an EU enlargement that is by no means accountable. We may have already experienced this in the 2004 enlargement where – and this should be emphasized for a moment – only one country out of ten was ready to join. Cyprus was economically and politically ready. Cyprus was ready at every level. Exactly that country is now threatened by that other candidate member state, Turkey, with the support of the United States. This too should be emphasized.

In 2004, only one in ten countries had completed. We are now in 2006 and we will take another step forward with two countries. On the other hand – I don’t even want to be pessimistic – we are going to expand with two countries that, at least at the moment, are supposed to be not ready at all.

And then we must fear the accession of Turkey, which is being imposed on us from all sides, including from across the ocean. We are making that European Union a waterhead that is increasingly drained out and that will no longer have any power. The European Union will exist because of its administration and because of the fact that all kinds of institutions have been created which, while they exist, must continue to exist. This is, in other words, a murder on the real Europe, a murder on the soul of Europe, a murder on the unity of Europe and a murder on the European civilization.

That is why the Flemish Belang today, conscious of its mission, will vote against.