Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-02-20-Speech-3-274"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2008-02-20"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Kosovo (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"es"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20080220.14.3-274"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2008-02-20-Speech-3-2752
lpv:speaker	lp:José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-neyra2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of the Andean Community (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3 vice-chair; Delegation for relations with Mercosur (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Partido Popular (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (2007-05-23--2009-07-13)3 chair; Delegation to the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly (2007-05-23--2009-07-13)3 substitute; SEDE (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Mexico Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-29--2009-07-13)3 member; AFET (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of Central America (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with Afghanistan (2007-04-24--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (2004-08-31--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the meeting of the Council of Ministers on 18 February will not go down in the history of the EU as a particularly glorious date. Rather than seeking a solution between the 27, the hot potato of the decision on recognition has been referred to the Member States. It is always frustrating that, each time we have to make a decision about a sensitive matter at the heart of our continent that affects important principles such as the inviolability of borders, we are not able to speak with one voice. To complicate matters, the Council conclusions refer to international legality. It is true that Parliament, like other EU bodies, adopted the Ahtisaari plan, but not as a blank cheque, rather on the understanding that the plan would have the approval of the United Nations Security Council. Obviously this was not the case, and various conclusions need to be drawn from this. The first is that it has been said that this case will not set a precedent, that it is a case, as Mr Wurtz said in his speech. We need to ask ourselves whether or not we are a Community based on law. We cannot be so on an à la carte basis. Obviously this case is going to set a precedent and when international law is flouted it does not come for free and unfortunately there will be consequences. Secondly, Mr President, how long are we going to be living with a United Nations Security Council in which there is an anachronistic right of veto for the winners of the Second World War enshrined in the San Francisco Charter in 1945? This is no way to construct an international order or implement fair and effective multilateralism. Thirdly, Mr President, either the European Union learns once and for all that union is our strength and fragmentation is our weakness, or we will have to renounce our vocation of international leadership in this globalised world and confine ourselves to being what described us as: the 21st century’s most prosperous third world region."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"The Economist"1 "sui generis"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph