Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-04-21-Speech-3-361"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040421.16.3-361"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate this evening is both regrettable and, in my view, dangerous. It is regrettable because the signatories to this motion actually have no other objective than to sully the reputation of the Commission, which, although it can be criticised for its management of the Eurostat matter, certainly does not deserve a vote of no confidence from Parliament. It is also dangerous, because this is an important time in the history of European integration with the unification of the continent on 1 May, the European elections, hopefully the adoption of the Constitution and the fight against terrorism. The process can only be weakened by mediocre political manoeuvres that do not fool anyone.
I do not in any way wish to minimise the importance of the questions surrounding the Eurostat affair, but above all, I wish to understand the real reasons that led those who signed this motion of censure to do so. Was it really their concern for transparency? I do not think so. Was it really their desire to shed light on the Eurostat affair? I am sure it was not. There are two reasons why I think not. The first reason is the time that was chosen for this initiative, Parliament’s last legislative sitting. Some will naively argue that this is a coincidence, but I would like to point out that more objective observers will note the proximity of the European elections. I would draw attention to the fact that the questions surrounding Eurostat were raised as long as two years ago. If a desire for transparency was behind this step, the motion of censure would have come much sooner.
The second reason to back up my arguments is the list of signatories to this motion of censure. Everyone is free to defend their convictions and undoubtedly the Members who support the motion of censure are doing so from their soul and their conscience. The majority of them, however, have an anti-European soul and a merely national conscience. Despite appearances, it is not the Commission that is being targeted, but European integration. It is not a defence of the interests of European taxpayers, but a desire to destroy the reputation of a Europe, which, although it is not perfect, is an effective way for our people to live in peace and relative prosperity. This motion of censure is the work of the ‘inward-looking’ club of people who reject common policies, fight against European progress waving flags of fear, and reject the contract of trust that is the European Constitution proposed by the Convention.
I am not trying to offend anyone by saying this, because this is what they are doing by making people believe that Europe is a machine, a monster that regulates everything, decides everything, cheats and I do not know what else.
The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats has chosen a different path to the signatories, because we talk about the future while others stay stuck in the past, because Europe is not built on fear, but on ambition and will. It is true that everything is not perfect. There is still a great deal to do, particularly giving real political meaning to what is a human step, because it is a human venture to welcome the ten new countries, which are a symbolic example.
With regard to the Eurostat affair, the PPE-DE Group as a whole has always publicly expressed a desire for light to be shed on the affair. We have noted the measures taken by the Commission. We want those responsible to explain themselves because we strongly suspect that major mistakes have been made. Those responsible must, however, be punished in proportion to any mistakes that become apparent. We owe the European people a sense of responsibility, respect for democratic procedures and a guarantee of the rule of law. Inquiries need to be conducted, there needs to be punishment for the mistake, the punishment needs to be fair and there must be transparency. This is what we have always said, this is what we are fighting for.
To claim, however, as the signatories to this motion of censure are doing, that the Commission has not fulfilled its obligations, to seek to blemish a Commission at the end of its mandate which has of course made mistakes but which has a commendable record, is not acceptable to us. This is why the PPE Group will vote against this motion with determination and conviction."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples