Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-01-Speech-3-064"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"1999-12-01"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Preparation of European Council of 10-11 December 1999 in Helsinki2
dcterms:Language	"el"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.19991201.7.3-064"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:1999-12-01-Speech-3-0652
lpv:speaker	lp:Mihail Papayannakis2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation for relations with South-east Europe (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 member_of_the_bureau; EUL/NGL (1999-10-13--2004-07-19)3 substitute; ECON (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Cyprus Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 substitute; PETI (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 vice-chair; PECH (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Synaspismos tis Aristeras kai tis Proodou (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, we have heard a great deal about this new enlargement strategy, which Mr Prodi has also proposed to us in the past. Some aspects of it are appealing and sound, some are threatening. Mr Prodi was not in the least convincing when it came to the following question: is political unification the price for the new strategy? We are particularly worried about this. We are worried that this strategy will somehow lead to a twin-track Europe – i.e. the 15 versus the rest – and that many aspects of unification are being sidelined. The second reason this worries us is on account of the Intergovernmental Conference: there is an air of vagueness and stubbornness about it and its narrow agenda only addresses procedural issues. What about the political issues, what we might call the intergovernmental economic management of EMU, Mr President; in other words, what about political intervention? What about the common policy on unemployment, or on employment for that matter? Are these not issues which are relevant to unification, issues which concern the very people from whom the Union is apparently distancing itself? The third issue is Turkey. Do the Council and the Commission know exactly what Turkey wants? We are convinced by numerous declarations that some people in Turkey just want ‘symbolic recognition’, purely for internal reasons, and do not take their future in Europe seriously. That is no good to anyone, either in Europe or in Turkey. If we want to make ourselves clear and if we want to stop bandying words and leading Turkey up the garden path, then we should send it a signal which says that, of course, Turkey will not be discriminated against, that goes without saying; however, we need to be clear as to what Turkey’s future within Europe will actually entail. We need a material policy which Turkey can verify and which allows it to head along the right path: the path towards the rule of law, good neighbourliness and peaceful coexistence, as well as towards a withdrawal from military operations everywhere, especially in Cyprus and on the Kurdish question."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph