Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-09-14-Speech-2-081"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19990914.4.2-081"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, Mr Prodi this morning you used a Russian word
which means openness. I hope you know the other word which Mr Gorbachov made famous
meaning restructuring, reforming - because we expect that from you too. You have to regain the confidence of the public of Europe. Everyone has said that this morning. You will only do that if you show these qualities: clarity, leadership, honesty and humility.
Clarity: your political vision, as expounded this morning, does not completely satisfy our vision, and you have to expand and think very much about social Europe, the environment and other aspects. We want from you concrete objectives. That is what people understand, and we want, as part of this clarity, evidence that you can listen. That evidence is not forthcoming at the moment. We want evidence that you can listen and understand what your role is, what our role is and what the roles of of the Council of Ministers, of lobbyists and of members of the directorates-general are.
Leadership: you have to show willpower, integrity and you have to show that you have very good eyes and ears and that you are a competent person.
Honesty: telling the truth even when it is not comfortable to do so.
Your Commissioners are being tested on the same grounds. Our committee, the Industry Committee, questioned three Commissioners and sent delegations to three others. We questioned Commissioners Liikanen, Lamy and Busquin and we went to the hearings of de Palacio, Patten and Wallström. We had the widest grasp of any committee. When we questioned Commissioners Liikanen and Lamy, we did so objectively, asking questions about their role. That was not the case with half of the Members there for Commissioner Busquin. Commissioner Busquin’s hearing revealed far more about that side of the House than it did about Commissioner Busquin. That is because he was subjected, unlike any other Commissioner-designate, to a sadistic, preplanned and concerted attack. There was no reaction to his repeated, very clear answers to the same question, and issues involving internal Belgian politics which had no bearing on Mr Busquin’s future role, given that this is a multilingual House, were repeated ad nauseam. No other Commissioner was subjected to this ordeal and it is bitterly resented by those of us who wanted to do this thing properly and to objectively listen to what Commissioners would say about their future work. That side of the House should be thoroughly ashamed of their conduct in the Busquin hearing.
Unlike those opposite we listened to the answers to questions about the future roles. The six Commissioners with whom we had dealings satisfied us as to their future competence in the roles which they will undertake."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples