Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2017-07-03-Speech-1-083-000"
|Predicate||Value (sorted: default)|
|dcterms:Is Part Of|
|lpv:document identification number||
"Mr President, I would like first of all to thank the Commission for the very clear stance on the joint statement adopted by the three institutions and the intention stated here publicly, beyond doubt, to properly enforce it. I hope that is to the satisfaction of most colleagues, and I was happy to see that both Mr Preda and Mr Stolojan seemed to be satisfied with the Commission’s very clear position. I shall tackle very briefly some of the issues that were raised on this. The common thread of the discussion has been the alleged – probably real – excessive power of some business people or oligarchs in Moldova. I truly believe in the following reality: the package of conditionalities attached to this MFA has true transformative potential to limit any type of arbitrary exercise of power in the Republic of Moldova. We have focused so much on the electoral issue – which is important, that is why we have addressed it through the joint declaration – but I truly believe that the reforms will be there for a generation, maybe those attached to the package itself, and this is far more important than simply a discussion on electoral reform nowadays. I also believe that there is a false dichotomy between corruption and competitiveness. In order for a country to be competitive, it cannot be corrupt. It does need to address corruption, so I believe we are doing the right thing with the DCFT, on the one hand, and with properly addressing and incentivising the fight against corruption Moldova, that is indeed the right thing to do. I would also encourage the Moldovan authorities to truly reach out to the opposition and to civil society, and engage in this discussion if the discussion continues on the transformation of the electoral system, but I also encourage the other parties to accept the invitation for dialogue. A proper democracy requires loyal democrats on all sides. And there is a bit of a paradox here: if you try to impose consensus from the outside, then a party walking out of that consensus could have a sort of veto power which may be seen as unfair. All of that said, I believe we have, if not a consensus, then we are close to a significant majority here ourselves and I hope that this will be confirmed by a positive vote tomorrow. Thank you again to all of you who have contributed to building this consensus in the House."@ro2
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples