Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-20-Speech-3-148"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021120.3.3-148"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spokenAs | |
lpv:translated text |
".
Despite some disagreement where the separate votes are concerned, I have voted in favour of the Brok report, in line with the support that the CDS/PP has always given to this process of the European Union’s enlargement. As a matter of fact, as we have frequently said, our position is that in the dispute between enlargement and the so-called ‘deepening’ of the EU, priority should – and must – always be given to enlargement. We consequently felt that Maastricht in particular was an historic error of timing and that, at that time, in light of the fall of the Berlin Wall, which had taken place just a few months previously, Europe’s leaders should have had the political vision to give priority to enlargement instead of launching straight into political union and EMU. Many of the additional problems that enlargement is, unfortunately, facing today stem from this error of timing. On the same theme, I regret the fact that the Brok report does not affirm and recommend a serious basic compromise with regard to these new future Member States: the last revision of the Treaties before the accession of these countries was undertaken in Nice and no new revision of the Treaties will take place until at least the first set of new Member States is able to participate in it, with full rights and with sufficient time for debate and reflection."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples