Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-12-Speech-1-059"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010312.5.1-059"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, you have given Mr Schulz an answer. I am grateful to you for that. We must accept it, but we do not agree with it. Mr Medina has now made this quite clear as well. We will continue to pursue this issue. We will be looking very closely at the reasons why this process has taken so long. It is not only that the stages within the process are incomprehensible; the length of time involved is beyond belief. But I would prefer not to continue this discussion with you during this debate, Madam President. Instead, I should like to say a few words to Mr Poettering. I am quite astonished by his statement.
Thirdly, Mr Poettering, what greatly astonishes me is that, if you had a clear conscience, you really would be pushing hard for a decision to be taken prior to the elections in Italy, without any delay here in Parliament. It was never an issue for our Group or, indeed, for our Italian colleagues who spoke out against it. Mrs Napoletano did not say that we are against a discussion of this issue. She was merely critical of the way in which the discussion was being conducted, namely on a party-political basis. Our Italian friends have absolutely no interest in politicising this matter. What we cannot accept is that the timeframe is so long. And if you, Mr Poettering, in particular, are genuinely interested in ensuring that a decision is taken, you must also be interested in ensuring that the decision is taken in the European Parliament now, regardless of the Italian elections. Otherwise, there will be suspicions that you know it could be dangerous for Berlusconi, and are doing your utmost to postpone the decision until after the elections. And you could only quash these suspicions, Mr Poettering, if you were in favour of a speedy decision by this House!
Yes! I am quite astonished, because I value him, I value him as a fair partner. But this time, he has astonished me. First of all, it is quite clear that Mr Schulz was speaking on behalf of his group. Mr Schulz spoke and put questions on behalf of the Group of the Party of European Socialists, and did so with a great deal of courtesy and moderation. Those of us who know Mr Schulz realise that he does not always find it easy to be so moderate and restrained, but he managed it on this occasion, in order to make the points on behalf of the Group in a clear and lucid way.
Our full support for Mr Schulz!
Secondly, Mr Poettering, let me make the following point. I did not speak last time in Brussels. You, however, said something in Brussels which is extremely dangerous. You said that this Group was going against Austria. Do you know who else uses this argument? There is only one person who argues along these lines, and that is Jörg Haider. He always says: “Anyone who criticises the Austrian Government is going against the country.”
I reject categorically – not only as an Austrian, but also as the present group spokesperson – any implication that anyone criticising the government is going against the country. Our group has never gone against the country or against Austria."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples