Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-14-Speech-2-250"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060214.27.2-250"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spokenAs | |
lpv:translated text |
"Question No 3 by Vytautas Landsbergis ()
In the Joint Statement with the European Union during the EU-Russia Summit in Rome on 6 November 2003, Russia took the responsibility of quickly concluding border agreements, which at that time were still unfinished, with Estonia and Latvia, thus precluding any questioning of its State borders with the enlarging Union. Nevertheless, in 2005 the Russian Government announced that it ‘does not intend to endorse’ two already finalised border treaties with Estonia, just signed by both sides and ratified by the Estonian Parliament. Thus Moscow unprecedentedly withdrew the signature of the Russian Government and recently urged Estonia to go back and reopen over 10 years of negotiations. The position of both the Council and the Commission remains unclear, even if Russia’s provocation is jeopardising the credibility of the entire Union in the eyes of the new Member States. One more possible task of it is to get a new frozen conflict, this time with the EU on a common border. Is it acceptable for the EU leadership to remain on the sidelines in the role of an indifferent observer? Is it right for the Council to refuse to take sides in a dispute on behalf of the EU?"@en1
|
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Subject: Estonia's border with Russia"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples