Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-03-15-Speech-3-244"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060315.21.3-244"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Brok report asks pertinent questions and provides answers, even though I do not agree with all of them. It also reflects the doubt felt by many in respect of further enlargement. That is why such great store is set by absorption capacity, which, if the report were to be approved without any amendments, would even be given a geographical dimension.
I share the view of most in my group that absorption capacity does not require any prior geographical demarcation in order to be fleshed out, since the Union’s demarcation will in the first instance be political – not that that will be easy, either. What matters most is that the EU should deliver on its promise of enlargement, certainly also with regard to the countries of the Western Balkans. Whilst the countries in question are still years removed from possible membership, the time has come to set down some firm agreements on this matter and even to put forward a time schedule. Needless to say, all the criteria, particularly the political ones, need to be met.
From what I gather, that is exactly what the President-in-Office of the Council said in her response. I take the view that vagueness about eventual membership and a fleshing out of the criteria will only delay the process, because this vagueness would be used as an excuse, from which nobody stands to benefit."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples