Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-12-14-Speech-3-017"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051214.6.3-017"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, that this Chamber is so splendidly decorated today is not in celebration of the achievements of the British Presidency, but because we shall shortly be welcoming the winners of the Sakharov Prize, who do so much, and so outstandingly, for the cause of human rights in the world. That the President-in-Office has arrived rather late is not something I want to use as an occasion for criticism; it simply shows that he too is subject to human limitations, but it does also show, symbolically, how the Council generally is a latecomer where the practical politics of moving Europe forward are concerned, and, if we are to have the results we want for Europe, we would like the Council to get up earlier in the morning.
We also demand that the European Parliament’s legislative rights be taken seriously. To take one example of which we have heard, we would remind you that promising money to the Hungarians for house-building touches upon this House’s rights, for it is we who have to pass the legislation that would make it possible for this to be done. We therefore urge you to take this House, and its reforming goals seriously; we want to be able to make use of our right in both internal and external policy areas, and we will not allow the Council to disregard them.
Where Iran is concerned, we are right there by your side. We must unequivocally express our opposition to Ahmadinejad and our support for Israel and its right to exist. Those who call that into question are, in essence, also questioning the right of the Palestinians to live as they are entitled to, for, if you deny Israel the right to exist, you are opposing any sort of Palestinian state; the fact is that, without Israel, there will not be one. So, in dealing with Iran, speak out against Ahmadinejad and in favour of peace in the Middle East; in this respect, we are one your side.
The President of the European Parliament said, to great applause, that it would be nice if we were to be informed about what is going on now. I presume, Mr President-in-Office, that the fact that you waited until midday to present your proposals for the Financial Perspective indicates that you have chosen a time after this debate in order to allow what emerges from it to influence your proposals. I hope that it will.
The Group of the European People’s Party would like to see a result for the Financial Perspective, but the crucial thing for us is that that result must be an acceptable one, and the reason why this is so is that Europe, after the difficulties we have had in various areas, needs renewed success. We would point out, Mr President, that we have as yet nothing to show for it. As you said, the President of the European Council, Tony Blair, gave an eloquent speech; indeed he did, and was applauded for it by many in my group, perhaps by more than in the group to which he politically belongs. Style is, of course, important, and I would certainly concede that the British Presidency – whether in the person of the Home Secretary or any other minister, not to mention the Prime Minister and President of the European Council – has been good at getting its message across. We have been getting along well with each other in this House, but style on its own is not enough. If style is not backed up by political substance, then it is the substance that loses out and must come in for criticism from us, and that is why we hope that results will be forthcoming from what you do in Brussels tomorrow and the day after.
We were told by the British Prime Minister, the President of the European Council, that more must be done for research. Indeed so, but it appears to me from the British Presidency’s proposals that what is now provided for research is less than what Mr Juncker offered us. Where, then, is the logic in what the British are doing?
We see it as crucial, and as cause for rejoicing by all of us, that there are among us representatives of the eight Central European countries that joined the European Union on 1 May 2004. We believe that it will be crucial to see whether what you on the Council propose – on the assumption that such a proposal is made – actually expresses European unity and solidarity, for if there is no such solidarity, we will be obliged to reject your proposal. For us, solidarity and the community of Europeans come first and there can be no first- and second-class Europeans.
I am addressing the President of the Commission when I say that we very much appreciate his writing to the British Presidency on 12 December, and that we endorse what he had to say in that letter. I have to tell the President-in-Office that the British rebate has had its day, and must therefore be reduced, the ultimate objective being that it should disappear altogether. We are, of course, aware, that this is tied in with the agricultural policy, and that is why we are in favour of a review clause with the effect that the whole EU Budget for 2008–2009 would be re-examined, but what we must not allow to happen is for the Central Europeans, who need our solidarity most, to end up footing the bill for the British rebate. That is not in your interests; it is not in our interests, and we will not agree to it."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples