Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-02-09-Speech-2-015"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100209.4.2-015"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I must admit that this is unbelievable. We have before us the coalition of hypocrites. It is just before St Valentine’s Day, and Mr Barroso is being told: ‘I love you, but I do not love you. I do not believe you, but I am going to vote for you anyway’. So, this is really …
No, it does not work like that. Therefore, Mr Barroso, I like it when you read the text of the treaty to us: initiatives, what initiatives? What initiative did the Commission come up with to address the crisis in Greece? Solidarity, where is it? In Spain, where is it? I have not seen it; I have not heard it.
Let me give you a piece of advice. One of Greece’s problems is its defence budget. 4.3% of Greece’s GDP goes on defence. What is the problem? The problem is Cyprus; it is the relationship with Turkey. Where is the Commission’s initiative when it comes to solving the Cyprus issue, so that Greece’s GDP is finally relieved of this stupid, idiotic conflict, which we, as Europeans, should be resolving? The Commission’s initiative: it does not have one!
The same point has been made with regard to Haiti. Baroness Ashton, I know that you are not a fire-fighter, a midwife or any other such person. However, I still want you to come up with ideas; I want you to defend something. You always tell us: ‘it is important, we must coordinate, I am going to coordinate …’. We do not know why it is important, we do not know the hierarchy of what is important, but we do know that you regard everything as important. We will not make progress like that.
Therefore, I believe that we have a problem. We have a fundamental problem here, and that is that we, as a Parliament, finally have to demonstrate our
with the Commission. And, of course, we will work with the Commission, of course we will work with the commissioners, of course – I know – there will be a majority.
What I would like for once, however, is for us to stop all the trite comments, to stop all the meaningless statements. We want a political Europe. Every time the opportunity arises to have a political Europe, we blow it! When, in Copenhagen, Europe was due to make progress, we blew it!
I would like it if, at some point, Mr Barroso and the commissioners – past and future – told us why they blew it, why Europe was not political, why Europe was not a global player. Mr Verheugen is leaving the Commission. He was the number two in the Commission, and he is telling Germany and anyone else who will listen that Europe was not a global player, that Europe did not play its role. He is not saying why he did not play his role.
It is always someone else, and I would like it if, for once, in this Commission, in this debate, we heard no more of the meaningless comments that Mr Schulz, Mr Verhofstadt and Mr Daul come out with: ‘the best thing would be to reject this Commission so that, together, we can finally get to grips with what is really happening in the world’.
What is really happening in the world is that Europe is failing to cope with the economic crisis, the environmental crisis and the financial crisis. There are enough of them. There are enough of those who cannot stand being deceived by their soothing words – they have already tricked us, they tell us: ‘we are against, we are against’, and, in the end, they abstain. ‘We are against, we are against, but we will vote in favour.’ That is unworthy of this Parliament. Let us wake up, because Europe needs it!
Yes, Mr Schulz, you make a great statement when you say, ‘we are going to think about it’, when everyone knows that you are going to vote for the Commission. That is a great political strategy, that is!
I wish to say something … I do not know why you are getting all worked up, Mr Schulz! You are not the President of Parliament yet! Calm down, my friend, calm down!
For my part – and Mr Schulz should have his speaking time cut by 30 seconds – I would like to say some very simple things, between ourselves. We have some large groups, which are going to support the Barroso Commission. They are incapable of producing a resolution together to explain why they support the Commission.
Incapable! Why? Because they are not in favour of the Commission – and at least Mr Verhofstadt is clear when he says, ‘I am in favour of the liberals’, and the other one is in favour of the PPE, and the other one is in favour of the socialists …
Me? No, there are none. But, yes … as you know, Mr Verhofstadt, ours is the only group to have been critical, even when there was a Green in the Commission. This is not the way we do politics. We need to know whether this Commission will have a vision, ambition and determination.
What has been said is true. The majority of the Commissioners-designate – I do not say all – had no determination, vision or ambition. However, when considering the Commission as a whole, the sum of the minuses is a plus. That is the new mathematical formula of the Barroso Commission."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"(Comment off-microphone by Mr Verhofstadt: ‘and you are in favour of the Greens’)"1
"rapport"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples