Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-03-15-Speech-3-239"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-03-15"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:2005 enlargement strategy paper (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"pl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060315.21.3-239"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-03-15-Speech-3-2402
lpv:speaker	lp:Konrad Szymański2
lpv:spokenAs	member; AFET (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; UEN (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; LIBE (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; Temporary Committee on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transport and illegal detention of prisoners (2006-01-19--2007-02-14)3 member; FEMM (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with Belarus (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with Mercosur (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 unknown; Prawo i Sprawiedliwość (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	". ( Mr President, it is very important that the report drafted by Mr Elmar Brok has today provided us with the opportunity to speak about enlargement. We definitely need to strengthen the Neighbourhood Policy and we need a new, more serious relationship between the Union and the countries with which it shares its borders. Until now, the Neighbourhood Policy has not been sufficient as an instrument. This has been proved by the fact that during its implementation, the countries influenced by its scope experienced periods of crisis and destabilisation on a large scale. New forms of cooperation as proposed in the report cannot, however, close the door to membership. We have to be aware today that either we offer countries on our eastern borders the prospect of membership or our appeals for democracy, market economy and respect for human rights will remain empty words. Unless they are offered at least the prospect of membership in the distant future, these countries will return to the sphere of Russian influence and all that this entails with regard to democracy and human rights. However, in the very same report we see the development and strengthening of views on enlargement in terms of absorption capacity. This term was never clearly defined and today is nothing more than a clever-sounding excuse, a cheap explanation for backing out of the enlargement process. If absorption capacity is to be based on acceptance of the Constitutional Treaty, then one could have the impression that the authors of this text definitely want to close the door to everyone. The Treaty, in the version we know today, can never resurface. Demanding that the European Commission defines the borders of the Union is a mistake. It will only bring embarrassing political discussions on the subject of geography and will definitely weaken the influence the Union has on the processes of democratisation, stabilisation and the strengthening of pro-western policy in neighbouring countries. This Parliament has often been at the forefront of the integration process. It has set far-reaching goals. Today, this same Parliament is proving to be the most conservative and passive of bodies. This begs the question: why?"@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Konrad Szymański,"1 "PL)"1 "on behalf of the UEN Group"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph