Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-02-Speech-3-043"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000202.4.3-043"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Madam President, they say, where I come from, ‘it’s three times for a Welshman’, and three times, as I think you will discover in the course of that debate, I signified my desire to respond very briefly to what has been an excellent, and on several occasions, a moving debate.
And, when we recall that, like many others on all sides of this House, my and my colleagues’ instincts are naturally aroused. However, the Commission has to act on the basis of values and law and not only on the basis of instinct. And that is why we came to the conclusion we reached yesterday morning. That is why we sustain that conclusion as we continue to uphold the values and the law. Without fragility, without complacency, without ambiguity, but in the service of the whole Union and every Member State of the Union and its people. We will continue to do that with energy and with consistency and as Mr Cox said in the debate, ‘necessarily with acute vigilance’.
First of all, could I express my thanks on behalf of President Prodi and my colleagues in the Commission for the support and understanding offered by several Members of the House to the position taken by the Commission in the statement that we made yesterday.
I must respond also to the fact, of course, that there were references during the debate – and I use some of the words employed – to the ambiguity, the complacency and the fragility of the Commission’s opinion. I am duty- bound to say to this House, there is no ambiguity or fragility or complacency in the opinion offered, or indeed the action taken, by the Commission on this issue.
We made explicit reference yesterday morning in our statement, as did the President this afternoon, to the fact that we share the concern demonstrated by fourteen Member States in their statement on Monday.
Secondly, we said, in very specific terms, that we will work closely with all Member States in examining the situation as it develops in Austria.
Thirdly, we expressed, in very explicit terms, that we will uphold without fear or favour the values and the provisions of Article 6 of the Treaty; and that we will take our part under Article 7 of the Treaty in ensuring that those values of liberty and democracy and fundamental freedoms are upheld. There is no complacency, no fragility and no ambiguity about any of that at all. And, when I say that the Commission took that view, I include my dear colleague Franz Fischler, who is from Austria; and who, once again, demonstrated his integrity and his independence as a Member of the European Commission, under oath, in being part of that statement that we made yesterday morning.
Anyone, therefore, who invites Franz Fischler to his house to somehow account for the fact that his nationality is Austrian, should examine their own motives in the context of a debate, which has been necessarily shadowed by references to xenophobia and even more lethal evils in this world. I say that in friendship and honour to my friend and colleague, Franz Fischler.
Could I also say, Madam President, that the understanding of the presidency, the Portuguese presidency, for our position, was absolutely demonstrated in the clearest terms by Mr Da Costa when he said, and I quote him, that ‘Portugal and the other Member States want to ensure that the working of the Community machine is not affected by the current situation’. That surely is in everyone’s interests. In order to ensure that the Treaty is upheld and that we sustain what was described as the Community machine, we are following the course of action which was set down in our statement yesterday. We will continue to do that, Madam President, without fear or favour. That is our duty. It is also a matter of conviction.
My final point is this. We understand the context of this essential debate. There are several people here who like myself for many years past have become familiar with Herr Haider’s offensive statements, the xenophobia of many of his policy elements and the strategy that he has developed of alternating aggressive statements with apologies, sometimes on successive days. We understand that, and we recall too the sometimes short and selective memory that he has of Nazism."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples