Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-10-Speech-3-092"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020410.4.3-092"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, on Monday our group made a request for the vote on this motion to be taken tomorrow, because this would have enabled us to take account of the Madrid Summit.
Loud shouts have never yet been an argument powerful enough to win me round, and if that is now the new argument of the left in the European Parliament then my group will not find it very persuasive.
So, in summary, the vast majority of our group will not be voting in favour of this motion as it stands because we deem it to be imbalanced. There are, however, other colleagues who have told me that they have decided on the basis of their own conscience to support this motion, and we respect that. Incidentally, we wish the Secretary of State of the United States, Colin Powell, who is now travelling to Palestine, every success. We hope that he will not only see Mr Sharon, but also Mr Arafat, and that this will contribute to the quest for a peaceful solution in the Middle East. Our group sends its best wishes to the American Secretary of State for his efforts to bring peace to the Middle East.
First listen to what I have to say! After all we are exchanging arguments and each side needs to take the other seriously. You are fighting for human rights, so listen too to what the chairman of the PPE-DE Group has to say!
We proposed voting tomorrow so that we could react to the Madrid Summit. This would also have given us more time to reach agreement on the substance because it does not make much sense for us to vote on the Middle East if the result will not be unanimous. Now, this was objected to on the grounds that we in the European Parliament needed to send another very strong signal to Madrid. The Madrid Summit, at least as far as the Middle East is concerned, is over, and even if there were to be a majority in favour of this motion here today, the European Parliament would no longer be able to send a signal to influence the outcome of Madrid. Your argument for getting this through today is no longer valid. I would ask you to take note of this at least!
On the issue itself, I very much regret to have to tell you that our group cannot endorse the joint motion for a resolution as it stands. Rarely have we debated anything with each other more extensively, at greater length and on such a serious basis, and in this debate political, moral and historical points have been put forward. We are very critical of the policy of the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon. But we ought also to have called in the resolution – and as it stands this is not the case – for, for example, the President of the Palestinian Authority, Yassir Arafat, to address the Palestinians in the Arabic language and call a halt to the terror of the suicide bombings.
I am only saying what the terms of our discussion were; we also take your arguments seriously, and as far as the moral and political issues are concerned we claim the same arguments for our group. But – and here I turn to the Commission, to Mr Nielson; Commissioner, I would be grateful if you would listen to me – we also have questions about how the money, which the European Union makes available to the Palestinian-controlled areas, is used. Since this does not appear in the motion, but very many other remarks ..."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"(Heckling and violent protests from the left, applause from the right)"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples