Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-12-01-Speech-4-159"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051201.30.4-159"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
There are lessons that need to be learned from the failures and mistakes in the appointment of the Commission last year.
It was worthy of criticism not least in that a competent candidate was required to withdraw because he held fast to his conservative religious convictions, while an incompetent Stalinist remained in office. It is not in the least acceptable that dubious candidates – those, for example, who hush up their involvement in the murky side of party finance – have no problem getting through. After all, future members of the Commission should meet the highest moral standards – those condemned by a court of law have no place in it.
It is also embarrassing to see that there is no agreement as to how the competence and suitability of a future Commissioner are to be evaluated, with the consequence that different benchmarks are applied. All the more is this the case when uniform criteria and requirements would have put other candidates out of the running.
Not only must we at last be given the chance to pass judgment on the designated Commissioners as individuals, instead of being fobbed off with one vote on them all, but it is also essential that we in this House agree to uniform criteria for evaluating them. The Member States, too, must take greater care in selecting them and put up only those contenders who really are up to the job. What certainly would achieve this would be the drawing up of a shortlist from which the most suitable applicants could be chosen. This is the only way in which future farces can be prevented."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples