Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-11-18-Speech-4-040"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041118.6.4-040"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, times are changing. The notion of ‘all power to the imagination’ has been replaced today by ‘all power to hypocrisy’, and it is very clear what is happening. We showed that the majority of the Members of this House did not agree with the chairmen of Parliament’s largest groups, including the Chairman of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, the Chairman of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, and even, at one point, the Chairman of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament. A majority of Members believed that we should be more vocal in our criticism of Mr Barroso’s proposals than the chairmen wanted to be. This has been the truth of the matter over the past few months.
Yet we have now suddenly discovered that all our criticisms of this Commission were only of limited value. Mr Barroso delivered a strong and forceful speech to this House in July in which he told us that he would not obey the wishes of Mr Chirac or Mr Schröder. Now, however, he is telling us that he will obey the wishes of Harry Potter, alias Mr Balkenende; this is a compliment to Mr Balkenende, by the way, as I am a big fan of Harry Potter. Yet why does the Dutch Prime Minister receive a thumbs-up with regard to Mrs Kroes, whereas Mr Schröder was refused a super-commissioner?
The independence of these great democrats is truly astonishing. Mr Poettering himself said in a television interview that the presence in the Commission of Mrs Kroes, who has so many scandals behind her, would not be tolerated. Yet today no one is interested in discussing the problem, which nonetheless remains a problem, that we now have a Commissioner responsible for competition who is unable to stand for the independence of the Commission as she is the product of her history. Seen in such a context, the situation really is unthinkable, and I should like to say to those many Members of this House who are critical of the sections of the Commission that have remained unchanged that by voting ‘yes’, and by giving Mr Barroso a blank cheque in doing so, you will undermine your criticism.
We are well aware that Mr Barroso will gain a majority, but why on earth should he be given a majority which will allow him to walk all over us when it comes to policy-making? To all of you who consider yourselves politicians today – and I am addressing all those who are still wondering whether they should vote for, vote against or abstain – I should like to say that I am aware that the rest of you are followers, not leaders, and indeed the majority of the PPE-DE Group would have voted in favour of the Commission last time. When one is a follower, one remains so from beginning to end; my remarks are therefore not directed at you, but at those who did not wish to hand Mr Barroso a blank cheque. I ask you to think it over, to vote no or to abstain, in order to prove that we take a critical stance and that Mr Barroso has made another poor job of his proposals.
(
)"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Applause from certain quarters"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples