Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-14-Speech-3-051"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030514.1.3-051"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, my first remark in response to this discussion is that I am very pleased to note, and I agree with the way Mr De Rossa put it, that there is broad agreement in Parliament on most of the important elements of the situation. This discussion in Parliament has shown that the European Parliament is a source of constructive ideas in the EU and a lot of inspiration can be drawn from what has been said this morning. A lot of inspiration is needed.
My second remark is specifically to Mr Titley, who raised the issue of Iraq's debt. This is a core element in clearing the ground so that we can move forward. Success depends on focussing on the issue of handling and clarifying Iraq's debt. To do this an honest broker is needed. It is not conceivable that the occupying power would ever be seen as that. This is one very good illustration, relating to a very practical and crucial point, of the need to have the UN playing exactly that role of honest broker.
We need to ask all creditors to come forward to present their case. We can use the IMF and the World Bank as the treasurer of this operation, and use the UN as the honest broker. Anything else will not work, but instead create suspicion.
To Mr Andreasen, who expressed a strong hope that the UN will have a real role, I would say, please spend the minutes it takes to read the draft resolution now on the table at the Security Council. Having done so, please talk to your Prime Minister. This is what must be done to bring that hope into what looks a little like political talk.
On the big, broader issue of the role of the Commission and reconstruction, it is not enough for Member States to say that they want the Commission to do something in this area. If we do not organise the basic political conditions properly, it will be difficult for the Commission to play a meaningful, effective role. The reality here is that we are still in a phase where the basic, real, political issues must be addressed first.
Finally, many Members have correctly pointed out that the big problem is the ability to agree a position in Europe. I agree that a qualified majority vote is better than disqualified unanimity. People will say that is not a guarantee that Europe will have one single standpoint. No, but Europe will have a standpoint and that is the one which will have authority. There might be disagreement after a vote, yes, but Europe will have a standpoint. The dynamics of everyone in the Union knowing that a standpoint can emerge after a discussion is a very pedagogical instrument, which will discipline politics in regard to how things are being discussed.
There is a world of difference between qualified majority and disqualified unanimity."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples