Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-11-29-Speech-3-073"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20061129.13.3-073"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
"Mr President, our relations with Russia are of strategic importance. Looking at the developments in the Middle East and considering the use made of Russia in the Security Council in matters relating to problem areas such as Iran and North Korea, we know that it is in our interests to have Russia on our side when dealing with these. We also know that mandate to negotiate a new partnership and cooperation agreement is to be extended to include the incorporation into that agreement of matters touching on energy security, democracy and human rights in Russia, and, if that is to be done, then negotiations are necessary, and a veto, by preventing the resolution of such issues, is not helpful. At the same time, though, it strikes me as of the utmost importance that the Commission and the Council, in the course of their negotiations, should bear it in mind – and you can use this as an argument, if you like – that any such agreement must, at the end of the day, be ratified by Parliament and that we will not accept an agreement that does not include certain conditions that are decisive in terms of solidarity between all Member States of the European Union. I would like to address one thing that makes it clear that it is self-evidently in our own strategic interest if the European Union acts as one in foreign policy matters, while also making clear that solidarity can be manifested also in smaller matters such as, for example, the issue of trade with Poland. If the impression is given that we are up in arms about the trade measures of a third country when they affect Germany, or the United Kingdom, or France, and make a great song and dance about it, smaller or newer Member States get the idea that their problems are not treated as being equally important, and we end up with a credibility problem. In view of the way in which this issue of trade between Russia and Poland has been handled so far, I can quite understand what the Poles are getting at. No actions are now being taken against a single country, quite simply because there is now only one trade policy. I therefore ask the Commission, and the member of it with responsibility for trade matters, to put this on the priority list in future, something that was not done for Poland, or, indeed, in the matter between Iran and Denmark three-quarters of a year ago. I think the Commission has to come to understand that this sends an important message to the people living in the Member States, that message being that we take their concerns seriously and care about them. That makes it easier to achieve agreement on other matters."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph