Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-12-13-Speech-3-027"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061213.4.3-027"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, keen though I am to congratulate both rapporteurs, I have for some considerable time been trying to rid myself of the image of them as twins. Whether or not Mr Méndez de Vigo was thinking of the pair’s mother I have no idea, but the business of giving birth to them must have lasted for several years. We congratulate both rapporteurs despite their membership of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats rather than because of it, for, in the crisis that the EU is undergoing, they have clarified something of great importance.
What does it mean when we regard deepening and enlargement as one indivisible task? It is one of which the rapporteurs have given a comprehensive and critical description, one not without criticism levelled at the Commission, the Council and Parliament itself, but they were also identical in the way they most scrupulously avoided the underlying, and very weighty, taboo issues. They have described the need for the whole of Europe to be united, but without asking what Europe as a whole actually is and where its borders lie. When we talk in terms of uniting and deepening, what, then, is the ultimate goal of this process of union? It is evident that there is more to it than using a market and a currency to hold Europe together, but what is the political objective? In January, Mr Duff and I put before this House a report in which these questions were asked, yet they have not so far been answered. That is one of the reasons why we cannot respond to many of the issues and fears that the public have; there are taboos at work here, and we should break them.
I am very much obliged for the forthright criticisms to be found in the Brok report, which are aimed at the superficiality of the way in which the financial consequences of the various enlargements are depicted and the superficiality with which institutional issues are addressed. It has to be seen as a black mark against the Commission that it has, from the very beginning of this constitutional crisis, failed to properly address the problems of the institutions, but the same criticism can be made of the superficial approach to issues such as internal security, justice, media freedom and fundamental rights. It is important that that should be said. Personally, I find it regrettable that the issue around Turkey should now see Cyprus put centre stage, for it is not really at the heart of the conflict, which is more about issues relating to fundamental rights and democracy – things that have actually been pushed somewhat into the background. The Commission should, in future, apply much greater thoroughness to dealing with these issues.
How is it possible that there should be in Poland, a country that signed the Treaty, a debate on the death penalty instigated by its government? How is it possible that the President of the Czech Republic should, only a few months after signing a similar treaty, cast doubt on social rights and on the social market economy? I think future accession negotiations will have to include much more discussion with the candidates of the goal of European political unification than has previously been the case."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples