Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-22-Speech-3-014"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031022.2.3-014"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, the Liberal Group in this House welcomes the Italian Presidency's initiative to associate the President of this House more closely with the work of the European Council. Nonetheless the overwhelming feeling of the European Liberal Democrats is one of disappointment at the outcome of the European Council. We fear that it may be recalled, if at all, as a summit distinguished more by what it failed to discuss and agree than for what it actually achieved.
One issue that was not raised is the continued detention, without charge or trial, of 26 European nationals at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba of whom I spoke earlier. As a symbol for them, I have in front of me 26 candles. I am sorry that the President-in- Office did not respond to my invitation to say a few words this morning about the continued detention of those European nationals and, indeed, of all 600 detainees. It seems to my Group that their detention without charge is a scandal and that the failure of European Union leaders in the Council presidency to keep the matter on their radar screen must be remedied.
This House is no less concerned by the situation in Chechnya. The wrongs which are being committed daily, in the name of the fight against terrorism, will hasten the rainfall of revenge which refills the tributaries of terror.
With less than two months to go until the end-of-the-year summit, by which time we are supposed to reach agreement on a new Constitution, the presidency had no time to lose. We fear that an opportunity for progress may have been missed. But handed an agenda with little real substance, EU leaders gave back even less. I question whether it was wise for the Italian Presidency not to push for decisions on the Constitution or to make compromise proposals now rather than leaving things to November. That may be too late – politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum. The lack of proposals has encouraged some countries to retreat from the Convention's agreement, and Poland and Spain to get a hearing for their self-interested sentimentality for the discarded agreements of Nice.
The crucial common defence clauses were discussed 'over dinner' but apart from Mr Blair's welcome U-turn on structured cooperation, we appear to have achieved little apart from giving America indigestion. Nor was there substantive progress on economic reform. While we welcome the European growth initiative and the refocusing away from spending on white elephant transport projects towards investment in R[amp]D, the real focus to get back to growth must be progress on structural reform. We would have liked to see the Council putting its legislative money where its mouth is and building the dynamic, open economy we were promised at Lisbon.
Progress on Justice and Home Affairs was limited, with little forward movement on the important issues of immigration and asylum. The one positive development, the creation of a European agency to manage the security of our expanding borders, was again agreed beforehand and merely rubber-stamped. The flip side of the coin is the proposal for biometric indicators for passports and visas which should have set civil liberty alarm bells ringing loudly but which seemed not to trouble the summit at all.
President-in-Office, much rests on your November compromise text for the Constitution. It will be your last throw of the dice and we wish you luck since we fear you may need it!"@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples