Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-02-12-Speech-3-166"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030212.5.3-166"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have just been listening carefully to the President-in-Office of the Council setting out what the extraordinary summit on the 17th is intended to do. Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I think it would be a very good thing if we really could find a common position on the points you have set out. They are also the essential points of the resolution adopted by this Parliament on 30 January, with which you are no doubt well acquainted.
I would like to take a close look at these four points. The removal of all weapons of mass destruction from Iraq is not at issue. That, I believe, is something we can all agree on, as, no doubt, we do on support for UNMOVAC and IAEA, that is to say, for the inspectors' attempts to bring all this about in Iraq. Where we will have difficulties, and where it is important that we be clear in our own minds, is with the maintenance of the UN's primacy. That international organisation is in charge of the process and must remain so; it alone is capable of endowing with legitimacy whatever measures will turn out to be necessary in this case. We also have to make clear our opposition to unilateral courses of action and, most certainly, our opposition to a preventive war. The final point that needs to be made is that we must try everything that occurs to us as individuals and groups as a means of averting this war and finding a peaceful solution. There are many possibilities for this. The latest proposals put forward in Europe point in this direction.
There is one point I would like to address and one prefatory remark I would like to make in order to make Mr Poettering's speech comprehensible. This House is perhaps not aware that we had elections in Germany on 22 September last year. They were won by Gerhard Schröder and not by Mr Stoiber. That is something with which Mr Poettering cannot yet come to terms, and he believes that his speeches in this Parliament will bring about Mr Schröder's downfall in Germany. He can carry on believing that, but I do not believe that this House is particularly interested. We have quite different problems with which we should be getting to grips.
One of those problems is that with the candidate countries. I think we have to make abundantly clear to the future members of the European Union the importance of the principle of solidarity, which is in every respect equal to the Copenhagen criteria and all the other technocratic criteria by which – so to speak – their readiness for accession was measured. I do not find it acceptable for these states, at this point in time, to make affirmations of solidarity, although I too welcome solidarity with the United States of America and have nothing against it. What is of primary importance, though, is solidarity with the European Union, which is to accept them as Member States and has made massive efforts in order to do so.
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, a great deal is being said at them moment about Europe being divided. I believe that never has Europe been so united at the level of its peoples as it is today in rejecting this war in Iraq. Opinion in all the Member States and in the candidate countries is between 80% and 90% opposed to war.
And I wonder how Mr Poettering, whom I have known for twenty years now, can make himself so remote from the opinions of his own people."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples