Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-13-Speech-2-033"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-02-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Commission work programme for 2001/Nice2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010213.2.2-033"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-02-13-Speech-2-0342
lpv:speaker	lp:Elmar Brok2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Conference of Committee Chairs (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with the United States (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (1999-10-12--2002-03-07)3 unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; AFCO (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 chair; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, we are now starting a discussion process in which the situation is as follows: the Amsterdam leftovers, which we now refer to as the Nice shortcomings, must be resolved in the post-Nice process, and for that we need a clear-cut process. It is not enough to depict this year as a full-blown discussion forum involving the civil society, which Mr Swoboda rightly criticised in his analysis. The question which needs to be asked here is: what clearly defined method is there for involving the European Parliament and the national parliaments? And this then begs the question: will it or will it not be a convention and what role will the convention play in formulating the documents adopted post-Nice? The question is: will it just be a folkloristic declaration adopted in a convention and will the 15 again behave in exactly the same way on the night? I think we need to clarify where we are heading, as regards both the methods and the objectives. This should not be kept under wraps. For the rest, we need to consider, now that nearly all the Heads of Government have said that the decision-making structures decided at Nice are poor structures, what we can do to put things right, perhaps even before the post-Nice process starts – for example in connection with enlargement agreements, which always clarified this in the past. In any event, this is the way forward if we are to avoid delaying enlargement. Enlargement is the second major issue on the agenda and we must carry out our historic duty here. That brings me to the third point. We must ensure that transatlantic relations are not smothered by new security policy debates, with the Americans failing to understand us and our security and defence policy initiative, and with our failing to understand the Americans and their rocket defence system. The first thing we can say, I think, is that enlargement is our own major security policy achievement. Secondly, if we develop our own capabilities, they will form part of the Atlantic Alliance, which will continue to be responsible for collective security in Europe. I think that, thirdly, this will enable us to create the right conditions for a transatlantic market place. The American president's current negotiator, Robert Zoellick, wrote the 1990 transatlantic declaration. I hope that we can re-establish this tradition and reduce the Atlantic Ocean to a pond once again."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Applause)"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph