Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-01-14-Speech-3-037"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040114.1.3-037"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spokenAs | |
lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my first remarks are addressed to an absent colleague, which I am sure is due to his packed schedule. I actually wanted to respond to Mr Poettering. He is not in the Chamber at the moment, but he will undoubtedly hear what I have to say.
In the course of today’s discussion about the Irish Presidency we have heard yet again from Mr Poettering, who always comes back to the same subject, namely the question of who will be the next Commission President. As far as he is concerned, it is obvious that the next Commission President will be proposed by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats. First of all, let me say that the European elections take place on 13 June. It is not up to Mr Poettering in plenary to determine which group will be strongest in this House after those elections, but rather it will be decided by European voters. We still intend to do a lot of campaigning. I am not certain that the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats will be the strongest group in the House after the elections. It may be, Mr Poettering, that the unifying forces at work within this group will actually fail between now and then. I am thinking of the British Conservative Party, and others, who no longer want to sit in this group, but it may be that a couple more will join them. Maybe Mr Fini – we do not know. It is a dynamic process after all.
Whoever becomes the next Commission President, however, will need broad support in this House and will only receive broad support in this House if he, or she, has the Group of the Party of European Socialists on his, or her, side. Our conservative colleagues would therefore be well advised to pursue an inclusive approach in the Chamber, rather than electioneering here.
Allow me to make a further comment. This criticism applies to everyone who refers to the domestic political situation in a particular Member State. I am thinking of the previous presidency, which taught me a hard lesson. For the moment, however, let it be noted with no further comment that every
MEP in this House exploits the office of the Commission President for domestic campaigning purposes. In my opinion, this is something that should be rejected vigorously in the interests of the European institutions.
Mr President-in-Office, I would like to ask you the same question that I also put to your predecessor, and I hope we will not end up with flights of cinematographic fancy. What do you intend to do to ensure the rapid introduction of the European arrest warrant? I put the same question to each presidency. If in your comments, you suggest that the Tampere process should be reviewed, then let me remind you once again that the European arrest warrant was a key component of the Tampere Conclusions and did not – despite the commitments made at Tampere – enter into force on 1 January. Let me repeat a point I made in our last debate: this is not the fault of one Member State, but rather the fault of many Member States. For this reason, then, I also ask you to be the President-in-Office who finally takes this issue seriously. Because if we want to implement Tampere, we need the European arrest warrant. I would be very grateful if you could come back to this point in your reply."@en1
|
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples