Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-03-15-Speech-3-249"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-03-15"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:2005 enlargement strategy paper (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"pl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060315.21.3-249"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-03-15-Speech-3-2502
lpv:speaker	lp:Ryszard Czarnecki2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; SEDE (2004-07-21--2006-11-14)3 substitute; AFCO (2004-07-21--2006-11-14)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--2006-11-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of south-east Europe (2004-10-13--2007-03-13)3 member; AFET (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Samoobrona RP (2004-07-20--2008-01-23)3 substitute; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2006-11-14)3 member; NA (2004-07-20--2006-11-14)3
lpv:translated text	"( Mr President, it is a myth that, without further enlargement, the Union will be strong and competitive. Yet it is also a myth that the Union can extend its borders indefinitely, for example with Russia joining the EU. Let us simply focus on priorities when it comes to enlargement. The countries of South-Eastern Europe should be in line after Romania and Bulgaria, which should accede to the European Union in 2007 and not 2008. After Croatia and Macedonia we should open another set of doors to Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Kosovo and Albania. This is the logical direction to follow. It is a question of strategic thinking and also of increasing security on the Old Continent. All in all, it will be beneficial from an economic point of view, as we will spend less on enlarging the Union by the next few Balkan states than on throwing money into the bottomless Balkan pre-accession coffers. The resolution of permanent conflicts in this part of Europe costs more than it would cost to have these states in Europe and thereby have them following the political and economic rules of play of the EU. Let us not fear expanding the Union as a result of the accession of the next few states. I know that this fear has become what you might call ‘trendy’. It is particularly useful in election campaigns which are continuously taking place in various EU Member States. If our Union is to be more effective economically and is not to fall behind in relation to America and Asia, it should progressively abolish the division of Europe into two parts: Europe A, or in other words the European Union, and Europe B, meaning all that which is not part of the Union. History has also shown that a Union that expands is a Union that is more secure. An invitation to accession negotiations, even without the prospect of joining the Union in the near future, is like the starter’s flag that is raised at the start of a motor race. The drivers must have a goal to aim for; they must know where the finishing post lies. Then they may travel far, negotiating many turns and even overcoming engine failures. What is important, however, is to set the wheels of accession in motion. Parliament’s motion for a resolution rightly highlights the fact that it is precisely this impulse that supported reforms in Turkey, Croatia and the Western Balkan states. Yes, enlargement is expensive, particularly in the short term, but it is a worthwhile investment in the long term."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"PL)"1 "Ryszard Czarnecki (NI ). –"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph