Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-05-Speech-3-049"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031105.6.3-049"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr Poettering, you cannot be more irate than I am myself about these leaks of information. Let me just say in all seriousness that it is perhaps a weakness in the Community’s procedures that the Commission has to be sent too many sensitive documents before it can take a decision. Leaks are a regular occurrence as soon as papers leave my office. I knew that this would happen. When, at 6 p.m. last Friday evening, in accordance with Commission rules, we had to dispatch the papers, I was in no doubt whatever that my weekend was, so to speak, done for – and so it was! I told the Commission this morning that I had no wish to tell them how much political interference I had endured in the last few days, on the part of Heads of Government and foreign ministers from every quarter, because I do not wish to give the impression that the Commission gives in to such pressure. The real problem with these leaks is that they limit the Commission’s capacity to act. We have been unable to make any amendments today, because all and sundry would have been able to draw comparisons between what happened today and what we originally wanted. That is profoundly sad, Mr Poettering, and I cannot give you an explanation. We are dealing here with derelictions of duty by individuals. Past attempts to discover who was responsible have failed time and time again, and I no longer have any confidence that such attempts will prove successful. What I can do is ask Parliament to forgive this manifest untoward conduct by members of staff whom I do not know by name, but which I hope you will excuse.
I also agree with you as regards the second question. If we were to set the number of problems that have been identified with the new Member States against the number of infringement proceedings brought against long-standing Member States in any given year, you would discover a startling discrepancy. The fact is that the number of infringements of the Treaties about which we have to complain to the present Member States every year is many times higher than the number of problem areas that we have now identified. I entirely share your view that, if we were to be able to measure the present Member States against the same benchmarks that we apply to the candidates for membership, we would, in one area or another, get some perhaps surprising results, whether in the area to which you referred – that of macro-economic discipline – or, perhaps in others as well.
What you said on the subject of Turkey is nothing new to me; it is a point of view that I respect. You will be aware that this is an area in which the Commission has a clear mandate from the Council, and that it must act accordingly. I would like to use this opportunity to make just one comment. A discussion of the principles behind Turkey acceding or not acceding is necessary and has to be conducted. Where, then, if not in this House? Where if not among the people of Europe? I am in full agreement with that. I simply ask that, in this discussion, we should never lose sight of the fact that we in Europe have a direct interest in Turkey being a fully-developed democracy, a fully developed state under the rule of law, with respect for human rights and protection for minorities.
If we constantly keep that in mind, then I do not actually have any fear that this necessary and unavoidable discussion might do any damage."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples