Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-12-13-Speech-1-090"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2004-12-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Turkey's progress towards accession2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20041213.10.1-090"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2004-12-13-Speech-1-0912
lpv:speaker	lp:Johannes Voggenhuber2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation for relations with Israel (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 substitute; LIBE (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the Palestinian Legislative Council (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 vice-chair; AFCO (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 member; G/EFA (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Die Grünen - Die Grüne Alternative (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, today’s debate on Turkish accession, on which we have to decide, shows how weakened, unsure of itself and divided this House is. The lines of division cut across every camp and every group, and ultimately reflect the insecurity of the public in the EU. What is the source of this weakness and this insecurity? Is it because we are late – too late – in thinking about, and becoming aware of, the fact that we are, by this decision, defining Europe, setting down its borders and giving European integration its final form, and that we are doing this without giving voice to it, without having talked to each other about it, without having consulted Europe’s parliaments, and without having conducted the necessary public debate? Is it because we were unable to persuade most of the public to accept Turkey as a member? Is it because the entitlement of Heads of State or Government to define Europe behind closed doors, out of sight of parliament and public, is more than precarious, and all the more so if you read the European treaties? Defining what Europe is is a matter for parliaments, not for the Heads of State or Government. For they did it, in 1999, behind closed doors, without consulting parliaments, without advice from the Commission. That is no basis for such a dramatic step. Are there really so few grounds for suspecting that some of its advocates want to use Turkish accession to finally smother the founding fathers’ conception of a European federal state? And if we are to talk in terms of ‘levers for democracy’ and ‘peace dividends’, why are we not giving absolute priority to the accession of the Balkan states, which would transform a region constantly ravaged by crisis and war into an oasis of peace? As for the last ‘lever for democracy’ argument, well, yes, if we can transform countries and states into democracies ..."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(The President cut off the speaker.)"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph