Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-03-12-Speech-1-111"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20070312.18.1-111"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spoken text
"Mr President, over the past seven years I have had the pleasure of debating CSR with Richard Howitt on and off for a considerable time. It has, of course, been a most enjoyable experience – as it says here! It has certainly been a challenge, but I am sure he would be the first to admit – and I see him chortling over there – that it has been a challenge for both of us. I would like to thank him for the way that he has risen to that challenge, because clearly we have both been approaching this issue from slightly different standpoints, although in our ways, like all the other speakers, we are equally wishing to champion the cause of CSR. I should just like to take issue on two tiny points with which he opened his comments. Firstly, he said he was disappointed that the Commission report almost indicated that it was opting out. I disagree with that. I think its report was very positive and we should welcome it. Secondly, he said that he hoped that the Commission would help bring the NGOs back to the multi-stakeholder forum table. In fairness, it was neither the Commission nor the multi-stakeholders that encouraged them to leave. They themselves chose to leave. It is up to them whether they wish to come back or not. Some of them at least had a minority view – in a democracy that is perfectly permitted. However – if the interpreters can rise to this challenge – we should not allow the tail to wag the dog. It is up to the NGOs to return. I will not comment further on his speech, nor, indeed, make other comments in detail about colleagues’ speeches other than to say I am sure the President and Commissioners are aware that – with no disrespect to any of my colleagues including myself – sometimes our speeches are for different audiences because we have to impress constituents back home. There is nothing wrong with that; we are politicians and that is something we have to do. However, I would invite you particularly, rather than just listen to us talk, to read what we say, to read what we are voting upon because the text is very significant. There are some aspects I still dislike about the text. I agree with Mrs Oviir from the ALDE Group in that I do not like the idea of an ombudsman, but it is an idea. There are a number of ideas that I do not particularly welcome, but they are ideas and all these ideas are generally worth serious consideration. However, the text is what is important. I particularly invite the Commission to think of the three reports: the original report that went to committee; the report that was amended and voted against by 15 members of the committee; and the final report as it is likely to emerge tomorrow. That report I believe will be very much on your side. If I may say so, Commissioners, I think you are a great double act. Tomorrow we will show we are a treble act and wish to follow your lead in advancing the cause of CSR."@en1
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph