Things are more complicated with, and there are more lessons to be learned from the Law on Broadcasting. Yes, an amendment to the Law on Broadcasting was passed last summer, but it was not harmonized sufficiently so as to bring it into compliance with provisions required of member states. But they were necessary specifically from the point of view of Eurointegration. In the name of accession, they still have to be included, so what transpired simply constituted a waste of time and resources. This is all the more true given that if we want to close the chapter on audiovisual services this year, then the relevant legislation should already undergo its first reading within the first half of this year.
Similar situations are likely to come up with increasing frequency in the near future.
So let us bear in mind the dimension of enlargment negotiations right from the start. The Government is obliged, as you know, to check whether draft laws are in compliance with EU legislation at the time they are introduced, but this does not help much when the Riigikogu transforms a harmonized draft into a law that is not harmonized. Unfortunately, we will also be unable to meet the EU's political, the so-called Copenhagen Criteria without amending our legislation. This is unequivocally written into our 1999 Accession Partnership document that enumerates the concrete tasks derived from the EU Commission's report. Indeed, the chapter on the free movement of peoples also deals in a formal sense with the right to implement language requirements and the prohibition thereof.