Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-01-15-Speech-2-008"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020115.1.2-008"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Ladies and gentlemen, I believe that we have had a quality exchange of views during this campaign, which rarely happens in this House, and I think that it will now be difficult to backtrack and imagine an election with a pre-determined outcome, with our plenary session serving only to ratify the decision. For that reason alone, I believe that this campaign was well worthwhile.
Although I utterly devote myself to Parliament – I think that I, like several other Members, have a 100% attendance record – it is due to a constant desire for dialogue, because I am a firm believer in seeking consensus, perhaps because I think that a victory where one’s opponent is crushed is a defeat in the sense that the victory always contains an element of the war in the offing. Therefore, we have reform, pluralism, and openness, which is all very well, but I shall make a promise: if we achieve this objective, we will face even more work in the future.
Ladies and gentlemen, be aware that when we started our work, we were regulated by a Treaty and when we finish, we may be working within a Constitution, meaning this is an historic stage for us. I am firmly convinced that, when faced with global instability, we as politicians can help roll back injustice, violence, pollution and poverty. Parliament is the beating heart of the whole continent and because hundreds of millions of citizens elected us to fulfil this task, we have unparalleled legitimacy and we must use it well.
In conclusion, I will say that I found the campaign an incredibly valuable experience and I believe that the whole House found this as well. I am sure that whoever becomes our next President will know how to continue to foster this attentive, working atmosphere of democratic debate. I can therefore only end by saying one thing in all our working languages. In spite of my terrible accent, I hope that you will understand what I say as I mean it sincerely – obrigado, gracias, grazie, tack
thank you, dank u wel, danke, tak, kiitos, and merci!
The most surprising thing is that the five candidates took up the same three themes. Perhaps it is not surprising, because if we put our differences aside, we share the same view, namely that Parliament needs to reform its working practices, and that it must ensure pluralism, respect and equality for each Member of this House and be more accountable to our fellow citizens.
So, we say yes to reforms. Let us use the plenary sessions to showcase our work. I dream foolishly of having such stimulating sittings that there will be more Members present in the Chamber than interpreters in the booths. I believe this dream to be a realistic one. But although the reforms are essential, they must not be at the price of our diversity. We have enough political experience between us to be able to determine, by consensus, what can technically be achieved in committee and what must necessarily be the subject of political debate in plenary.
The person with the strongest convictions must never simplify the debate to the point where that person is the only one expressing a point of view. It is true that democracy is sometimes complex, but the complexity of debating is better than sterile monologue. With regard to reform, I have tried to prove that when you really want something, you can achieve it. You will recall the assistants’ statute, for which I was responsible. After a 23-year long deadlock, 99.5% of Members submitted all the documents on the agreed date to prove that the assistants had a genuine contract and full social security cover. So, as far as reforms are concerned, we can discuss them, we can take action, and this is what I have tried to do in a small way.
Let us now discuss pluralism and equality. I remember when I had the honour of chairing our vote on an important issue for my group, which was that of GMOs. Voting was suspended because of a formal sitting and, when it resumed, there were not enough Members to pass the legendary milestone of 314 votes. Some of my friends in the Group of the Greens said to me ‘Gérard, perhaps you could have gone slightly more slowly to give our friends time to get back to their seats.’ But, what sort of president would slow down or increase the pace of the votes depending on how this could affect the outcome? It seems that I conduct the votes at a swift, albeit regular pace, and this is the price of the respect that I owe you and the trust that you have placed in me.
I must also listen when a Member of the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left draws my attention to the fact that some of our employees are facing job insecurity or when a Member of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party asks me to intervene because some of our disabled Members need additional assistance. And even when Mr Fatuzzo makes one of his wonderful speeches, I try to find an appropriate response, to value his talent as a speaker. Being from a small group myself, I understand the great importance of respect owed to each Member. As far as pluralism is concerned as well, we can discuss the subject, we can take action, and this is what I have tried to do in a small way.
I shall now turn to openness. You will recall that not long ago our rooms were used exclusively for Parliament work. In other words, they stood empty most of the time, which is ridiculous when we are aware of the need for debates with the citizens in our countries. I therefore spearheaded an amendment to our Rules of Procedure, so that, for example, the first world congress on the abolition of the death penalty could be held here. Other debates with the citizens are also being prepared in Brussels and Strasbourg in which our committees are involved. With regard to openness, once again, we can discuss it, we can take action and this is what I have tried to do in a small way.
In some ways, I have not been campaigning for two and a half months; I have in fact been trying to carry out reform and introduce more pluralism and openness into our Assembly for two and a half years now. When you believe in what you say, you put it into practice, without even knowing whether you will ever have the honour of asking your fellow Members to vote for you. Of course, it would be extremely presumptuous for me to say that I have done all this single-handedly. As you know, everything here is achieved by working together and through dialogue.
On the assistants’ statute, there was deadlock initially between the groups before we moved towards unanimity within the working group. Then we achieved unanimity at Quaestor level and finally we reached unanimity within the Parliament’s Bureau. And I would like to congratulate the person who enabled us to carry out all these reforms and many others. Although I did not play a part in electing her, whenever I encountered deadlock, she always gave me the necessary impetus to enable me to move forward. Thank you, Mrs Nicole Fontaine."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"ευχαριστώ"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples