The association agreement and the opposition’s obligation

Yesterday’s meeting with the Committee on Foreign Affairs was mostly devoted to Ukraine, in particular, discussing if and under what circumstances can the Association Agreement be signed. We know the situation well. The EU has set the conditions that need to be met in order for them to sign the agreement. The Committee on Foreign Affairs invited the representatives of the Ukrainian opposition, MP Lesia Orobets (Batkivshchyna), MP Rostyslav Pavlenko (Udar), and former MP Serhii Vlasenko. And so a debate began. It was an important and necessary discussion because the atmosphere and climate of the final debate about the EU’s position will mostly depend on the stance of the Ukraine opposition. As you know, the fundamental obligation for completing the project is the responsibility of the government, with the Parliamentary majority, but the opposition also has a special duty. They have the responsibility of reviewing and commenting the government’s actions, as well as the privilege of supporting the government’s actions, which are consistent with the pro-European declaration that is so strongly expressed by UDAR and Batkivshchyna. My observations are further strengthened by the fact that both Batkivshchyna and UDAR collaborate with the European’s People Party, which is very critical of Ukraine, President Yanukovych, and the government’s methods.

When taking part in the discussion, I stated some obvious facts. And so, we have the agreement that is currently on the table and that was negotiated by the Party of Regions. There has never been a party that’s been able to negotiate this type of association and trade agreement. Secondly, if 43 percent of Ukrainians are for European integration, then we are the holders of their dreams for the future, their plans for integrating with Europe, and their intentions to adapt their Ukrainian lives to the standards that we imposed onto ourselves. The third fact is not talked about, but it’s the obvious pressure from Russia, which today is mainly about trade and customs, while Russia is intending to rebuild its empire that collapsed a few decades ago. The fourth very important fact is that the Ukrainian opposition is claiming that they are in favour of signing the agreement. They are even saying that this will be a historic moment, which will most likely not happen again soon. And, at the very end are the well-known conditions of which I spoke of in the beginning. Although the conditions are very precise and detailed, meeting them won’t require supernatural abilities. Before the Vilnius Summit, Commissioner Fuele and the Ukraine Minister of Foreign Affairs are sure to meet and assess the fulfilment of various requirements, which have been well-known for over half a year now. After that, we will know if the conditions that the EU asked for have been met or not. Then, at the very end, the Member States and Ukraine will have to answer the question of whether or not this agreement helped them achieve their grand plan, which is to bring Ukraine closer to the EU.

As always, during the discussion about Ukraine in the European Parliament, it was easy to see those who believe that “the glass is half empty.” However, I belong to those who see the glass as half full. I believe it’s important to provide the conditions to allow it to continue to be filled. And this is what the deep and comprehensive free trade agreement is supposed to do.