Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-16-Speech-2-214"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-05-16"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Progress report on the accession of Bulgaria and Romania (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060516.35.2-214"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-05-16-Speech-2-2152
lpv:speaker	lp:Alexander Graf Lambsdorff2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Freie Demokratische Partei - Die Liberalen (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; 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 substitute; SEDE (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 substitute; AFET (2004-07-30--2007-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with Japan (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 member; Delegation for relations with the United States (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 member; ALDE (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; IMCO (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner Rehn, ladies and gentlemen, Bulgaria and Romania will join the European Union on 1 January 2007. That is beyond question. Both countries have made progress in their reform efforts, but this work will continue for some time yet. We all know that. Mr Cohn-Bendit is right there. However, he is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and that is irresponsible. It is the Commission that is acting responsibly here. It is right not to issue a blank cheque right away. It is also right to develop a perspective for continuing to monitor the reform processes, if necessary even in the years after accession. There are still shortcomings in some areas, some of them serious; they have been mentioned here. We must ensure that the laws are not only adopted there but also applied. I am thinking especially of the EU resources that will be spent there. Fair monitoring by the Commission can help here and should be accepted by both countries. Pierre Moscovici has said so. That is far less drastic than postponement or the like. The citizens of the EU and of future candidate countries will be keenly interested in enlargement policy in the future, too. That makes it all the more important that the EU should pursue a consistent and credible enlargement policy. This enlargement has shown that in future, we in the European Parliament must be careful to vote on enlargements close to the time of accession and not 18 months before. I want to make clear again that this is not the accession candidates’ fault, it is our own fault. There is moreover no point in including in treaties postponement clauses that actually have no teeth, like Article 39. The Commission cannot recommend a postponement of accession at all. What would happen if its recommendation were not followed because of just a few votes in the Council? The Commission would be repudiated and there would be two countries sitting at the table of a Council, the majority of which had previously voted against both countries’ participation. No, that will not do. We will therefore need better instruments in future. The accession of Bulgaria and Romania is beyond question. Both countries have achieved a lot, but we too still have something to do in order to improve our enlargement policy. I also believe we should be holding this debate in Brussels and not in Strasbourg."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph