Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-06-04-Speech-3-092"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080604.19.3-092"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, this final chance to speak gives me the opportunity to do something I did not have time to do earlier on – to thank Commissioner Verheugen and Mr Solana for the excellent cooperation with their staff, who were available for discussions and from whom I learnt a great deal. This had a very positive effect on the report.
I would also like to thank the all the committee members, particularly the committee chairman and rapporteur for the other report, Mr Saryusz-Wolski. We occasionally sent notes to each other, like schoolboys, when we had overlapping issues in our reports, in order to achieve the same wording. That also worked very well.
I would like to add three points:
First in English, since some of the speakers addressed the question of the Irish referendum.
On the legend of militarisation: my report contains a full list of arms control and disarmament proposals – a whole page of it. Secondly, the Lisbon Treaty retains the right of every Member State to stay away from EU missions, especially military missions. This right is not infringed by the Lisbon Treaty in any way. It was very interesting to hear self-proclaimed advocates of NATO expressing their fear for the independence of neutral Ireland as part of the ESDP. I think that was very interesting.
A final point, which Mr Pflüger mentioned, relates to the issue of parliamentary scrutiny: I do not know whether this was a deliberate misunderstanding, but the text that occurs in both Mr Saryusz-Wolski’s report and my own does not preclude groups having access to confidential information. The formulation is an open one. Here in Parliament, we must first do our homework in order to develop some kind of negotiating position in relation to the Council. What level of security clearance do we want to grant to how many Members? It may well be that we say that all groups are granted a certain level, and some groups another level, and so on. We will have to develop that ourselves first, and neither of our proposals prevents the groups from participating in this.
I do not know whether this was a deliberate misunderstanding, or if the text was so unintelligible – I do not think it was – but we should first sit down together here in Parliament and develop our own negotiating position in relation to the Council."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples