Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-10-26-Speech-2-027"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041026.5.2-027"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr Barroso, it is on television that we look for superstars; in this House we look for something else. First mistake.
Second mistake, Mr Barroso – you have been on a tour of capital cities. You asked Heads of Government to telephone Members of this House. Mr Barroso, did Mr Schroeder, Mr Blair and Mr So-and-so take part in the hearings? Were they here when the hearings took place? No, they were not.
This is why, Mr Barroso, you must respect the institutions. The Council nominated you. You were elected with a healthy majority. My group did not vote for you, but we recognise this election. Then there were the hearings. Please stop asking the offices of Heads of Government to disturb us. In any event, the more they telephone, the fewer votes you will get. Try to tread carefully. Listen a little to the British Members of this House who are starting to become fed up with telephone calls from Downing Street.
Your third mistake, Mr Barroso – at this point I come back to what Mr Poettering said to us on the subject of cultural difference: ‘there is no need for uniformity in this House’. Yes, Mr Poettering, nobody here criticises anyone whatsoever for their religious beliefs, their philosophical beliefs or their ideological beliefs. Nevertheless, any religious or ideological fundamentalism is poison for democracy. If a man campaigns against divorce, he is perfectly entitled to be against divorce and to wage a political campaign. If a man campaigns against a woman’s right to have an abortion, he is perfectly entitled to be against abortion and to wage a political campaign. If a man campaigns for the withdrawal of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation from the fundamental Charter and from the Constitutional Treaty, as Mr Buttiglione did by signing Amendment 444 of the Convention, he is perfectly entitled to do so, politically speaking. We are perfectly entitled, however, to say that he is the least suitable person to defend the principle of non-discrimination in the European Union. This is a political decision, not an ideological one.
Accordingly, let me state this once again: you cannot say in this House that democracy will be rejected by the general public if it is working; you cannot say that if there is a ‘no’ vote here the general public will reject the Treaty. The opposite is true – if Parliament shows its democratic colours, the general public will vote for that democracy and for that Constitutional Treaty. We are defending democracy and we have had enough of the authoritarianism of orchestra conductors."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples