Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-04-Speech-3-062"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021204.4.3-062"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, I have raised this oral question on behalf of my group in order to bring once again to this House, and therefore to a public and transparent debate, a fundamental issue which is a constitutional one.
With regard to Mr Rothley, I must say one thing; with Mr Rothley as rapporteur, the Statute is very difficult, without Mr Rothley, it is impossible and we must all be aware of this and, therefore, instead of increasing divisions and offending many members of this House, what we must do is work together and bring this Statute forward.
I am grateful for the letter you have written and I have one hope, Mr President, because I believe that you also take this approach. I hope that today the Council will say that it is prepared to hold talks with us on the methods for approving the Statute. That is all I am asking of the Council today, and I am very grateful that Mr Haarder is here because he has been fighting with us for the Statute. I would like to mention one thing, and that is that the Treaty of Nice is now in force, which means majority approval, except on taxation issues, which will be decided unanimously. Today, all we have to ask is that the President-in-Office of the Council hold out his hand – not to me but to Parliament. We must do the rest through an open debate and joint work amongst us and, please, let us not increase divisions. Let us seek unity in Parliament because this is our responsibility and we cannot transfer it to others.
At a time when in the Convention we are considering reforms of the Commission, the Council and all the institutions, being able to fulfil our mandate with dignity, honour and equality as European citizens is an essential issue which we have been working on for a long time. I would add something else: we must resolve this issue during this legislature, before it comes to an end, given the political importance it has.
I tabled my question in the quest for greater support and consensus within the European Parliament because I believe it is necessary and I must say that my group believes that this is an issue which must be defined with the greatest possible transparency, both with regard to the constitutional aspects of the Statute and the rules which we have to lay down for ourselves.
What I regret at this point is that it seems that, in seeking the greatest possible agreement, disagreements have been highlighted. I have been faced with an open and systematic accusation; this morning, in a press conference, three parliamentary group presidents have publicly accused the Socialist Group of blocking the Statute.
As the President is well aware, it was I who proposed the amendment to the de Palacio report which was approved by 455 votes. It was I who proposed, and this is in the joint resolution of the Liberal Group as a recital, that a group of eminent people had to be created, and Mr Haarder is well aware of this, and I proposed its membership, beginning with Mr Ersbøl.
This is what I have done on behalf of the Socialist Group. I would like those people who have criticised us – and I do not mind the election campaign being brought forward, but it should not verge on slander – to explain in this House – which is where things should be explained – what it is they have done.
And I would say to Mr Watson, with the greatest of respect, that it would also be interesting – he has a golden opportunity – if he could explain why he feels surrounded by Germans. We are all equal here. I do not feel overly influenced by the Germans, it is not true.
It is not true, for example, that this system of allowances has been created to compensate the Iberians. I come from a parliament in which they gave me the ticket, I had never earned more. I was faced with this system and I do not know any parliament, even those which pay most, which has renounced this system. Why do we have to have this hypocritical and cynical argument? I believe we have to seek unity and not offend our fellow Members because we have to work together to find a way to move ahead.
Finally, Mr President, you are well aware that I was the president of the group which most supported the idea of you being able to maintain exploratory contacts with the Council. Now, we are in a parliament, we have to apply the parliamentary method, not the plebiscite method, and I am glad that after I raised the question, you have written to give an account of your activities, and I am also glad that you have spoken with Mr Rothley."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples