Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-06-12-Speech-2-168"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-06-12"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:ASEM process2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010612.9.2-168"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-06-12-Speech-2-1692
lpv:speaker	lp:Jules Maaten2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Temporary committee on human genetics and other new technologies in modern medicine (2000-12-13--2001-11-29)3 member; Delegation for relations with the Member States of ASEAN, South-east Asia and the Republic of Korea (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 substitute; ECON (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; ELDR (1999-07-20--2002-03-06)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, we already talked last year about ASEM’s Summit in Seoul and, on behalf of my group, I then expressed my disappointment at the outcome, not about ASEM as such, and certainly not about the Commission’s attitude or about that of our Commissioner, which bore witness to a vision and was very intelligent. We were disappointed about the attitude of our Council: the EU ministers had to be dragged to this Summit kicking and screaming. One could be forgiven for thinking it was a Parliament meeting: that was the level of unwillingness that was displayed about going! Their presence did not reveal any sense of involvement. I therefore believe that the meeting was quite a bit weaker than it could otherwise have been. It is, of course, understandable. Ministers have to attend so many summit meetings: every other week, they have to attend some summit or other. But if they started by handing over EU matters to the European Commission and the European Parliament, that would free up a considerable amount of time in their diaries and might well lead to decisions which the public could back more. But that is another matter. This resolution is not terribly exciting, except maybe for the point about issuing visas for authorities from Taiwan. This is an important point, in our view. It is odd, to say the least, that a President such as Mr Chen, who has, after all, been democratically elected, cannot enter the European Union, even in a private capacity. The United States has been issuing visas in this connection for much longer. We will no doubt be backing some amendments by the GUE Group. But some of their other amendments seem to emanate from the Chinese friendship association, and we will not be supporting those. We did find Mr Dupuis’ original report exciting. That report is truly radical in its appeal for a coherent strategy aimed at more democracy and the development of the rule of law, which is also important for the development of the economy. We need no longer place the main focus of policy on China. There is an entire region which is of importance to us, and expansion to include a country such as India, for example, would be crucial. Finally, the ASEM process is of major importance to us. We would also like to see MEPs become more involved. We are looking forward to the talks on ASEM IV. We hope and trust that the European Commission will be closely involving us in that process."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph