Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-09-14-Speech-2-013"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040914.2.2-013"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I warmly thank you, Mr President, for your speech. You addressed the points that we in the Socialist Group in the European Parliament regard as fundamental to the future that we face, and so we are glad that you have spoken about them. I am not able to follow up all the points you raised, nor would I wish to do so, but I would like to revisit a number of the keywords that you used, because they determine the direction in which this House must develop.
In your speech, you made frequent reference to the two sources from which the European Union derives legitimacy, the Council being one and Parliament the other. The Constitution speaks of a Union of states and peoples; the states are represented by the Council, and the peoples by this Parliament, and that is why it is right that this House should represent the diversity of Europe’s peoples. For our group, that also means, for example, that this House’s language arrangements are not some sort of burdensome and necessary evil, but that they must guarantee the diversity of Europe’s peoples and enable it to be – in the truest sense of the word – articulated. For that reason, I am grateful to you for referring to your establishment of a working party to arrange matters efficiently, which should also, however, continue to make it possible for any man or woman in the European Union, irrespective of their school or university education, to have the opportunity of being elected to this House and working in it. That involves ensuring that they are understood, which I see as an important aspect of stabilising European democracy.
You also spoke on behalf of this House in repudiating all those who believe that the only way to combat terrorism is with the language of force, and for that I am very grateful. Those who go to war claiming to be the bringers of freedom, democracy and human rights and sow the seeds of chaos, disorder and imported torturers cannot be surprised if their actions help to foster terrorism. Those who seek to respond to terrorism by reintroducing the death penalty are countering violence with violence. Undermining democracy in order, allegedly, to make a better job of combating terrorism is not the right way to go about matters. Terrorists understand their own language; that is why, wherever they themselves use force, force – legitimate force on the part of the state – is the response that is needed to restore order. What society needs, though, is open dialogue and the unconditional and fearless acceptance of whoever is the ‘other’ in that situation. It is the clash of civilisations that gives rise to continued terrorism; dialogue, of the kind you have described, could be a way out of the terrorism trap, and so I thank you for addressing this point in such clear terms.
You spoke about the accession of Turkey and about the decisions that now have to be taken. This morning, I read in one of the major German daily papers that the debate on this cuts right across group lines in this House, and that all the groups in this House present a diverse picture. That comes as a surprise to me, as I had always had the impression that only one group was united on this and that the picture in all the others was a varied one. As of this morning, we know that there is a diversity of views in every group in this House. At the end of the day, every individual Member will have to weigh up for himself and herself the benefits involved in seizing a short-term political and economic opportunity as against taking long-term, indeed geostrategic considerations into account, in particular as to how different cultures are to be integrated into this Union, but you were right to point out that it is we who have to take that decision, and that taking it without the European Parliament is unthinkable.
On this issue, then, this House will have to take up a position, and we in the Socialist Group will make our contribution to this debate, a contribution that – as is perfectly clear – will not be uniform, for there are quite different views in our ranks too. It is in any case true that one thing we must not lose sight of when discussing our policy on Turkey is the need for Europe’s actions to be underpinned by reliable statements and promises made on the international stage. I can scarcely imagine that one can, over a period of forty years, make repeated promises to a country and impose more and more new requirements on it, which it then meets, and end up telling it that the entire process had been of no avail and that all their efforts had been in vain. Whatever criticisms one might – and must – make of Turkey’s domestic situation, it is a self-evident fact that, over the past three years, the prospect of accession has made possible more reforms in that country than the forty years of discussions that preceded it. That, too, is something we must not lose sight of.
As regards the Members’ Statute and increased efficiency, you said what had to be said. You have our backing for the strategy you described, and, if you take it further, you can count on our absolute support. I would like to conclude by saying something about your comments on the audition of Commissioners. We in the Socialist Group will use this occasion to make it clear that the incoming Commission must take seriously your statement that ‘competition and social cohesion are two sides of the same coin.’ Those who believe that all Europe needs is competition and that social cohesion is not that important destroy Europe’s basis, for it has been the social model that has made Europe stronger. It is for this social model that we in the Socialist Group will contend; we will defend it, even against those elements in the Commission who tend to highlight competition to the exclusion of all else. That is why, when examining every single Commissioner, we will emphasise the project of the social Europe.
Let me conclude by saying that, no matter who it is that turns up and presents himself, we will judge him by his policy statements, and not by his political past. The fact is, Mr Poettering, that if Lazlo Kovac had not been Secretary of State to Gyla Horn, then Germany would not have been reunited. It was the Hungarian Government, in which Lazlo Kovac served, that made German unity possible. I welcome Lazlo Kovac as a European – let me say that right at the outset – and so let it be understood by those who seek to make the Commissioners’ hearings into a battle of ideological principles that they have not seen anything yet."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples