Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-01-14-Speech-3-011"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040114.1.3-011"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, we have to ask ourselves a very simple question: is Europe as a whole sustainable? When I say ‘we’, I mean the Council, the Commission, Parliament. I have heard some astounding things in this Chamber. I hear that Europe is a success story – how nice – and that we have an historical opportunity – how nice. Then, Mr President-in-Office, you said how wonderful it is that the Convention has done excellent work. To which my response is: take it, if it is so good. Do not bother about the 82 outstanding Italian Presidency points – an illusion, forget them! Then you can say: forget Mr Blair’s ‘red lines’. The Convention has done an excellent job, so let us get on with it. Next, along comes Mr Poettering and says we have to compromise. Of course there will have to be compromises – but based on what? Based on self-interest, thereby making Europe unsustainable? The principle of double majority is not a mythical creature. We have to decide for once and for all whether Europe will be capable of taking decisions in the future. If individual states have the power to block decisions, making them will no longer be viable. If you want applause from the Spaniards, perhaps you could explain to me how Europe can have an effective decision-making process using approaches such as those suggested by Mr Aznar. His proposal will not allow effective decision-making. That must be acknowledged now, or else there is little point in continuing.
it is criminal. We have to tell them so. Then we need to talk straight to Iran.
Then there is Hanau: we have to be straight with China about this Hanau nonsense. It is foolish to operate as a weapons dealer and to work towards increasing the number of uranium treatment facilities. These comments are also aimed at Mr Brok, whose party in the Bundestag supports the move, and at Mr Schröder. The list goes on: we also have to be honest with Iran. Giving money towards destruction – as is being done in Iran at the moment – is a political disaster for democracy. We have to tell Iran that. Then, if we really do support the rule of law and democracy, let us simply follow the Brazilians’ example. In Brazil, they have decided that if their citizens have to have their photograph and fingerprints taken when they travel to the United States, then all US citizens who come to Brazil will have to do the same. That means that if Americans come to Europe
they will also have to have their fingerprints and photograph taken. Equality all round! Only then will we be partners worthy of respect.
To close, I would like to touch on the Stability Pact and the Commission. President Prodi, it was heroic to declare this Stability Pact a load of nonsense. Your decision to take legal action against the Council was foolish, because you were unable to reform the Stability Pact even though it is not working. It is just as stupid to defend a rule that does not work as to defend a stupid rule. We all have to acknowledge the fact. Thank you.
The discussions in the Chamber did not end there. Mr President-in-Office, you spoke of Lisbon, of being prepared for the future, of social cohesion – all excellent. Then we read a letter from a Mr Schröder, a Mr Blair, a Mr Chirac, and someone else, a Dutch Prime Minister, which says that Europe is expanding, but will have less money. That is the most creative economics I have ever seen! If you expand, you pay less: how is that for logical reasoning? And yes, I will tell Mr Fischer so. Mr Poettering, perhaps you could ask your own ministers, Mr Schäuble and Mr Lamers, who thought up this two-speed Europe? It was not some stupid Social Democrat or Communist: it was your very own Mr Schäuble, potentially the next Federal President of Germany, and he did it in order to keep Spain and Italy out of the euro. That is the true history of two-speed Europe.
Your own Helmut Kohl also did his bit, with the Schäuble/Lamers paper. You seem to rewrite history as it suits you. While I have the floor, let me add the following: Mr Poettering, you stood up in this House and said, ‘we will not allow it’. You will have to accept whatever the majority in this House votes for. Either
you will have the majority or we will, and the President of the Commission will be appointed accordingly. You may be the largest group, but you are far from being the majority. Mr Barón Crespo is right: go ahead and form a majority with the British Conservatives, and I will be interested to see what kind of President you get for the Commission. That is something I would like to see.
There is something else I would like to say: let me add something else. You stand up here and announce what you do and do not want. Tell us for once and for all, and tell the Presidency. Either we want Europe to be based on human rights and the rule of law, in which case there is one road open to us, namely, to be honest. We agree on this, that we have to tell Mr Putin the truth about Chechnya, and that is what the Presidency should be doing. We have to tell it straight to China: that is what Mr Schröder ought to do. Not only is it folly to lift the arms embargo – in view of human rights in China, of their policy on Taiwan, of their policy on Tibet"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples