Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-05-25-Speech-3-040"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050525.11.3-040"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, on behalf of the Democrats and Liberals in this House, let me say to the signatories of this motion of censure that they are being ridiculous. They presume to say ‘
’, but neither Mr Farage nor Mr de Villiers is an Émile Zola – far from it! This motion is nothing but a ploy to discredit the European Commission.
Europe needs builders, not a demolition squad; MEPs who look forward, not those who look back; parliamentarians who see opportunities, not those who exploit difficulties. There is room for diversity of view about the future of the European Union, provided those views are presented honestly and openly through public debate. As a recent election in the country I know best shows, when the views of the movers of this motion are presented openly, they get very, very little support.
I trust that this House will give a clear answer to the signatories of today’s motion.
What is the real motive of those who have tabled this motion? It is not transparency; if it were, the signatures of at least four British separatists who refused to publish details of their financial interests on the Internet would not be appended to this motion.
The signatories of this motion of censure had but one aim, which was to discredit the President of the Commission and the entire Union with him. Why, moreover, did they choose to make this move only a few days before the referenda in France and the Netherlands? Not for any of the reasons they put forward, but to cause the Union maximum embarrassment in the run
up to these public consultations.
Mr Barroso, you must feel rather perplexed. We started a debate about hospitality. You volunteered us the information about your holiday with Mr Latsis as an example: a friendship of long duration, a holiday accepted before you took office, before there was any debate about whether you might assume certain responsibilities you are now accused of abusing – quite apart from the fact that there is hardly a major industry in Europe which does not receive some government support. And if you had no contacts with industrialists, you would have as few friends as Mr Farage!
Liberals and Democrats will defend accountability and transparency in all of the European Union’s business. It is part and parcel of a government’s contract with the electorate. We are proud to have been at the forefront of the campaign for this. We all know there is a case for greater transparency. Under President Pat Cox, under President Borrell, through interinstitutional agreements with the Commission, we have made, and we continue to make, progress. The Commission’s code of conduct was revised with the entry of your Commission. It probably needs to be more explicit about the notion of hospitality.
We also defend the right of Members to bring a motion of censure under our Rules, but such tools should be used with caution. Members should beware that frivolous use such as this risks discrediting both the tool that Rule 100 gives us and this House. This debate is a deflection from serious business. We must all be vigilant on matters of public accountability, but we must also let the Commission get on with the job of bringing the European Union’s Member States closer together."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples