Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-22-Speech-3-017"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031022.2.3-017"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President-in-Office, it may be true that six months is too short a time to make any real headway on matters but it is an even shorter time if one has the tendency to waste time holding meetings of Heads of State which serve no purpose, being merely expensive repetitions of debates already held at Foreign Minister level. The Italian Presidency should have presented some conclusive documents at Brussels to attempt to resolve issues which have been staring us in the face for months. There have been enough questionnaires: now it is time to provide some answers.
Mr President, we see the decision taken by the Council to transfer analysis of the chemicals legislation to the Competitiveness Council as a defeat for all those who care about citizens’ health and as a victory for the great chemical industry. Clearly, the decision was affected by the reluctance and delays on the part of the Commission in presenting its proposal and by the excessive consideration it gave to lobbies, as well as by its serious oversight in failing to incorporate the demands of civil society during an extremely long pretence at consultation.
It is to protect health and the environment, not to promote competitiveness or trade, that it was decided to draw up a proposal on this matter in 1998. We will hold fast to
this line and we are ready to give battle, alongside the environmental and consumer associations, out of respect for all those workers who continue to fall ill and die in Europe and throughout the world.
Mr Watson started with an evocative reminder of the appalling situation in Guantánamo, but I would stress my disappointment at the fact that there has been no mention of the 11 000 prisoners, or detainees, we might say, being held by the United States in Baghdad: they are not Europeans but they, too, have rights. We repeat our proposal once again here: we must suspend the entry into force of the extradition agreement with the United States in order to put pressure on the United States in this matter.
One last point, Mr President-in-Office: as you know, the European Parliament is extremely sensitive to the question of its citizens’ rights. In July, Parliament called upon Italy to do something about the case of Adriano Sofri, turning it into a European issue. We are confident that you will respond to that call: you have the capacity to do so. As Europeans, we feel it is genuinely distressing to see the entire Italian Government, and the will of the President, too, so completely at the mercy of the whims of a minister.
In this connection, I would like briefly to mention the Legislative Council. We believe that this is a genuine question of democracy. As Mr Frattini said yesterday, there is a discrepancy between what many governments are imposing and what the overwhelming majority of parliaments wants. The Legislative Council is essential to ensure democratic control and the separation of powers, and, today, we would like your government to provide guarantees on this matter.
The Intergovernmental Conference, with its gridlock, the debates of pernickety haggling over figures and percentages which are so reminiscent of the nights of Nice, leaves us somewhat nostalgic for the Convention, which, with all its shortcomings, successfully debated the common future of the Europeans and how to govern them.
A word about the Lampedusa tragedy: these are not immigrants, they are refugees, and there are proposals gathering dust in the Council on the legal framework for immigration and the definition of refugee while the different governments continue to exchange proposals. Mr President-in-Office, find a solution to the matter. That will be worth much more than many words.
The spirit of Nice is also hovering over the lengthy list of bridges and motorways which the Italian Presidency and Commissioner de Palacio wish to give us. With regard to the famous list of trans-European transport networks, all we hear today are the cries of the two categories of interested parties: those lamenting the inclusion of a particular tunnel or corridor and those who are champing at the bit and want to start building as soon as possible. There is no discussion of the quality of these investments or whether they are necessary; everyone is treating the issue as though it were a matter of national prestige. Proof of this is the Italian Government’s barely disguised attempt to put increasingly unceremonious pressure on France, which is rightly unsure as to the need for the Turin-Lyon tunnel.
It is genuinely embarrassing, Mr President-in-Office, for a large country such as Italy to have to bargain for an unsustainable tunnel with a dubious electricity investment, especially if we consider the truly non-European nature of Mr Lunardi’s conflict of interests with regard to this project.
We continue, undeterred, to say that what would help to genuinely boost environmentally and socially sustainable growth in Europe now is a kind of Marshall Plan – a different sort of Marshall plan, promoting useful infrastructure but also renewable energies, land regeneration, research and innovation.
Every day, kilometres upon kilometres of railway branch lines are closed in the countries soon to join the Union, leaving thousands of citizens with no transport: this is further evidence of the fact that the mobility problems are not going to be solved by the airy-fairy promise of trans-European networks.
We call upon the Commission not to continue merely to rubber stamp demands from various quarters but to return to its key task: pursuing the interests of Union. It would appear that there is going to be a new list, known as the quick-start list. Without further ado, we would say to President Prodi that we greatly welcome the idea, particularly if this new list is based on the quality of the work and its social and environmental sustainability, unlike the Van Miert list organised by Commissioner de Palacio. We must remember – since the Commission and the Council appear to have forgotten – that Parliament has power of codecision on this matter and we intend to make full use of it."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples