Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-11-Speech-3-134"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061011.16.3-134"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I had two complaints and I shall add another, since I find what is happening in this House today to be absolutely intolerable.
Firstly, it shows disrespect towards Parliament to change our rules and make the substitute Commissioner reply before I have the opportunity to put my question.
Secondly, the absence of the Council. There is no justification for it, and we raised this today in the Conference of Committee Chairmen: there is no justification for the absence of the Council, particularly given that the Council’s role in this issue is currently very much in question, in terms of the impartiality it has shown in considering it.
The Finnish Presidency – and I say this with very great regret, since Finland is exemplary in terms of transparency – has not acted correctly, and Mrs Lehtomäki should have given explanations.
With regard to Commissioner Mandelson – and I say this to Commissioner Rehn so that he can pass it on, and I will say a little more – if Commissioner Mandelson were in a State school, his parents would have been called because of their son’s truancy: because he was not here at the September sitting to debate the report on India; today he has had to leave; he is not going to be here for Mercosur … Yes, it is very important to talk with India in Helsinki, but it is more important to be where the executive should be, which is in this Parliament talking to its Members.
Mr President, with regard to the fundamental issue, I must say that we support the Commission: we support it and we entirely disagree with some people’s two-dimensional stereotypical view that there are either pro-free trade countries or protectionist countries in this field.
The Commission is taking a balanced approach; we act here jointly and with solidarity, and we are in a very serious situation. It is said that there is protectionism; well we must protect our workers, for example. At the moment I can tell you that the last industry remaining in France, in Alsace, manufacturing safety footwear, which is very important, is going to go to the Court of Justice, because the differences are of 40% — bearing in mind that we are asking for antidumping measures in the form of a tariff of 10% to 20% — and the footwear coming in does not conform to the minimum safety standards.
This is not therefore a debate that divides the European Union into those who are in favour of doing the right thing and those who want to close the doors. This is a debate in which we are calling for compliance with the rules that we have agreed within the World Trade Organisation. In its work, the Commission has acted correctly, though it has not done so today when it comes to Commissioner Mandelson’s absence.
We therefore believe that the Commission should treat such an important issue as this with greater respect. Other issues are very important too, but the President and I have missed many planes in order to fulfil our duties. If there is a Summit tomorrow, they should get up early or arrange things in some other way; but where they should be today is here."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples