Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-02-Speech-3-028"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010502.2.3-028"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, thank you for your explanation. In connection with it, I would first of all like to point out that you commissioned a study, at my request, in which two things were clear: firstly, that there were different types of treatment, and secondly, and I would like to stress this, that no request had ever remained in the drawers of the Bureau of Parliament for nine months. This is important. I would also like to say, with the utmost respect, that the President of Parliament has to submit to the Rules of Procedure, which means giving the responsibility to the corresponding committee. I have said this to you in public and in private. Out of respect for you and for the position that you hold I have tried to maintain a constructive attitude throughout this process and I would like to point out that the three proposals that you mentioned as agreements of the Conference of Presidents came from me. Specifically, the nomination of Mrs Garaud, and I add my condolences for her situation, was your proposal, but the proposal to send an emissary was mine. This therefore justifies the letter that I sent to you with the agreement of my Group. My Group still considers that this issue should be announced in public. The truth is that we are faced with a very paradoxical situation because a matter that has not been announced is taking up a large proportion of our plenary sittings, but in the end, that is how it is. We also think that it should be the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market that should deal with the matter.
Now, if you will allow me, Madam President, I am going to answer the allegations made by Mr Poettering who, with his usual elegance, has launched a torrent of abuse at the Socialist Group. First of all, the problem could have been avoided. This comes from August of last year, when the Italian elections had not yet been called. If it had been dealt with at the time, we would not have had anything to say about it. But also, Madam President, although the Secretary-General of the PPE insists that the Socialist International is behind everything, they are not going to tell me that we control media such as
and even the
. Unfortunately, ladies and gentlemen, we do not have these powers and what is more, even if we had them, we would not use them. Therefore, there is a very simple solution to the matter under consideration. You belong to the same political group as Mr Berlusconi, who was enthroned as the rising star of the PPE at the Berlin Congress, and who is of the same political group as the President of the Government of my country. And you are of the same political group as the President of Parliament and the chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. I did not wish to use these arguments. So be careful what you say because everything has an answer.
Madam President, I would like to ask Mr Poettering a question in order to confirm what he said on Friday. Do you think that, in your country, a person with a conflict of interests such as Mr Berlusconi has could stand for the German elections? Because your colleague, Mr Brok, says that the answer is no. Please do me the favour of answering the House."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Los Angeles Times"1
"The Economist, El Mundo, Le Monde, Handesblat"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples