Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-09-22-Speech-3-026"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2010-09-22"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Conclusions of the European Council meeting (16 September 2010) (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20100922.3.3-026"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2010-09-22-Speech-3-0272
lpv:speaker	lp:Alexander Graf Lambsdorff2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Freie Demokratische Partei (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 vice-chair; ALDE (2009-07-14--2012-01-26)3 member; AFET (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, this, of course, was a European Council meeting that focused, among other things, on foreign policy. At almost the same time, in the United Nations General Assembly, China and numerous developing countries voted against granting special status to you, Mr Van Rompuy, and also to Baroness Ashton. This ought to be addressed with China at the summit on 6 October and it needs to be discussed in no uncertain terms. However, it demonstrates quite clearly the reality of the situation: the European Union still has a long way to go to achieve political power. We are currently an economic power and, for that reason, citizens expect us to do something in this area to combat the economic crisis. That brings me to the task force. Mr Van Rompuy, you said there was broad consensus. At the end of the month, this consensus will be put to the test. On 29 September, the Commission will present its documents. You have already said that you will present a draft on 27 September. I hope that these will be in line with each other to some extent. Incidentally, I would recommend that you speak Dutch more often; I very much enjoyed your statement on the Community method. As regards macro-economic surveillance, there is apparently consensus in the task force – great! Monitoring of national fiscal policies within the European Semester – that is a good thing and something that we expressly welcome. As regards the sanctions, you say that more work is needed. We all know what that means: there is no consensus. The test will therefore come at the end of the month. Why, as Parliament, do we insist so strongly on the Community method? Mr Schulz has just mentioned this. We are still in the process of weighing up the Lisbon machinery. However, the crucial point is this: the European Council is now a European Union body. What that means in terms of its understanding of itself, we do not yet know exactly. If often appears to us to be a gathering of Member States representing only their national interests. One national interest is very clear: that of the United Kingdom, which is to have as little regulation as possible in the financial sector. The Community method represents our only chance of getting the interests of Europe as a whole to prevail over individual national interests. That is why this House insists on the application of the Community method. In light of your Dutch statements, I am pleased that you view this in the same way."@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph