Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-07-03-Speech-2-013"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010703.1.2-013"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Prime Minister, all credit to Mr Persson and Sweden for a competent presidency. You have set a new standard or transparency with your home page, but the Swedish signature appended to the regulation on transparency paved the way for the EU now deciding what you must come up with in Stockholm. I asked for the minutes of the meetings on transparency. You did not dare to issue even those, for they would of course show that France, Germany and Spain are opposed to transparency and, were that fact properly to emerge, the three governments would be pressed by their elected representatives and electorate to approve that transparency which Sweden had as an objective. This is an area in which Sweden has committed an historic betrayal.
Sweden has also violated the Treaty by introducing qualified majority voting as a method of taking decisions on future changes to the rules governing confidentiality. Before the unlawful adoption of this method on 19 March, measures constituting progress could be adopted by 8 of the 15 countries. That alone is difficult enough. Progress can now be blocked by France, Germany and Spain, even if we can convince all the other 12 countries that progress is what is at issue. Parliament is now bringing legal proceedings against the Council. It is embarrassing for a Swedish presidency to stand accused of a Treaty violation in connection with transparency.
I also want to criticise the police action in Göteborg. Hooded demonstrators threw paving stones at the police and smashed up shops without being caught. Instead, peaceful demonstrators were taken into custody when they arrived at the ferry port. They were not allowed to take part in the peaceful demonstrations. This is something from which we must learn. Enter into dialogue with the peaceful demonstrators who use arguments. Tell the men of violence that throwing a paving stone at someone else’s window may be interpreted as attempted murder. We who wish to demonstrate peacefully must also learn from the battles. People with hoods on must be expelled from demonstrations. It must never be possible to confuse peaceful demonstrators with criminals. There are no excuses for violence, but there are grounds for consideration and reflection. Why have so many young people given up hope of being able to affect decisions by using arguments? Why do the media give more coverage to people with paving stones than to people with arguments? Why, in general, have no European media covered the many serious debates arranged in connection with the Göteborg Summit?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples