Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-26-Speech-1-026"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050926.11.1-026"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen from Romania and Bulgaria, everybody has warmly welcomed you, our group warmly welcomes you and, as you can see, you have arrived at just the right time. Your situation is, in fact, peculiar. This Parliament is clearly furious, or at any rate is if we are to believe the group chairmen who have voiced their opinion against the Commission, against such and such a person.
Mr Borrell, you said that the moment Mr Blair spoke in this House was a great moment for democracy. What happened? He gave a speech, he left and since then the Presidency has gone quiet. ‘They’ no longer exist at all, we do not know what ‘they’ do: this is not a great moment for democracy.
(
We are not talking here about the French Presidency; for the time being, we have a UK Presidency. There is a UK Presidency, it should preside over matters and it is not doing so. We are therefore entitled, as Parliament, to point out that it is doing nothing. That is the least a Parliament can do. Full stop.
I would like, at this point, to make a very simple remark. If Mr Barroso thinks this or that about the Constitution, let him come and say so to Parliament. We will debate it with him and we will give him a dressing-down. Let him come and speak about the Constitution to Parliament. If Mr Barroso believes that laws exist that should be withdrawn, let him come and say so! Moreover, on this issue, Mr Poettering, you cannot say that, as regards the content, you agree with Mr Barroso: we do not know what Mr Barroso wants. You can say that, as regards the format, you agree, but personally speaking, as regards the content, I do not know what the Commission wants to do.
With regard to better regulation, let us take the example of Mrs Reding, who wants to create European television, television in the style of Mr Berlusconi, with advertising everywhere. Is that better regulation? No, it is worse regulation and we do not want it. We know what its content is. Let Mrs Reding come and propose her new directive on television, and you will see that what the Commission wants will never gain majority support in this House.
Matters are therefore very straightforward. The Commission makes proposals and formulates ideas. It goes into recess, it asks itself some serious questions, it returns and it formulates ideas. Let it come to Parliament to present its ideas. When we have a directive, we put it to the vote: it is accepted or it is not accepted. When we want to withdraw a directive, we vote on the proposal: it is accepted or it is not accepted.
We take things one by one and whether it is a question of better regulation, of neoliberal regulation, of socialist regulation or of no regulation at all, what matters is the content.
I have had enough of those people who continually make proposals in the European area without knowing whom to address themselves to. We want a Commission that is a Commission proposing European laws. We want a Parliament. We want a Council that looks after its affairs. When there is a Presidency, let it preside over matters without other distractions. If Mr Blair likes to play cricket and drink tea, then that is his choice but, as President, he has other matters to attend to. He has to make proposals so that Europe moves forward and, for the time being, Europe is not moving forward, and it is because of this Presidency."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"He turned towards Mr Watson, who asked him: ‘What about the French Presidency?’)"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples