Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-04-12-Speech-2-216"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2005-04-12"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Applications for accession of Bulgaria and Romania2
dcterms:Language	"fi"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20050412.27.2-216"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-04-12-Speech-2-2172
lpv:speaker	lp:Ville Itälä2
lpv:spokenAs	member; BUDG (2005-01-13--2007-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with Japan (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 unknown; Kansallinen Kokoomus (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 vice-chair; EPP-ED (2004-07-20--2007-02-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Temporary committee on policy challenges and budgetary means of the enlarged Union 2007-2013 (2004-10-14--2005-06-08)3 substitute; LIBE (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Romania and Bulgaria must become members of the European Union, but how is it going to happen and when is it going to happen? First of all I would have welcomed more willingness for cooperation on the part of the Council with respect to financing issues. We have heard here today that there is still a very great number of uncertainties, and that is why it would be preferable if we gave further consideration to what could be the common view on these issues. In particular, we have problems with regard to Romania, and the questions is whether it fulfils all the criteria. If it is not a requirement for Romania to fulfil all the criteria, which all Member States have had to do so far, it will be a bad example to set for future new Member States, such as Turkey. I was pleased to hear Commissioner Rehn’s suggestion that the safeguard clauses must be applied, if the conditions are not adequately met and if Romania is not making sufficient progress. I strongly support this view. Now it would have been more sensible to wait for the next progress report and only vote on these issues then, not tomorrow. Above all, the question is about public trust in how the institutions follow rules and agreements. A short time ago the Stability and Growth Pact was watered down, because it was considered to be politically important. If membership criteria are now to be watered down, because it is considered politically important, it is difficult to imagine how the public can trust in these institutions."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph