Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-12-18-Speech-1-025"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061218.6.1-025"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats has thanked the President-in-Office of the Council, which is a good thing, and I should like to join them in doing so. I am much obliged to Mr Vanhanen of the Finnish Council Presidency, who I agree has done a good job. Considering the circumstances under which the Finnish Presidency had to take leadership of the EU, I would even say he has done a very good job. I also share Mr Vanhanen’s view that the fact that journalists describe a summit as ‘boring’ does not necessarily make it a bad one. It is true that journalistic bloodbaths are less important to the EU than tangible results, and so I, too, wish to judge this Summit on its results rather than on the boredom or joy it imparted to journalists.
I have not yet finished with the festive proceedings. I shall not thank the President on behalf of my group colleagues for the performance of his duties just yet – that is for later – but I shall thank him and the Secretary-General for the fantastic job Parliament’s services have done again this year. We would not be able to do our jobs if it were not for the truly qualified and, above all, collegial and humanly impeccable input from Parliament’s services. I think that a few words should be addressed to the people I consider the true heroes of Parliament, namely the ladies and gentlemen behind the glass. In my opinion, Parliament’s interpreters do an outstanding job, a job without which this Parliament would be inconceivable.
I am grateful to one and all that I have finally been allowed to speak for eight-and-a-half minutes. I am much obliged to the President.
I shall list two positive points. This Summit sent out the clear message that Europe does admit its responsibility with regard to enlargement. The enlargement process entails a responsibility on our part. In the Balkans, in particular, prospective accession has had – and continues to have – a peacemaking effect. A clear message was also sent out at the weekend to those who believe that enlargement can be continued without carrying out the reforms that are essential as part of the constitutional process. This was that there will be no enlargement without the necessary reform of the EU. That, too, is an important message, as those saying that enlargement should be carried out on the basis of the Treaty of Nice have to understand that the notion that Europe could function effectively, and meet popular expectations in the countries wishing to join the EU, on the basis of the existing treaty structures, has been reduced to absurdity. Anyone in favour of enlargement, therefore – as the means to meet people’s needs and make peace – needs a Europe that functions effectively. For this reason, I should like to make it clear here that, without the reforms built into the constitutional process, there will be no enlargement with the support of my group, but with the constitutional reforms there shall be.
In the course of the debate at the weekend, we heard a second positive – in my opinion very positive – series of statements that will point the way ahead for the coming years. The fact that the EU has declared its support for migration policy by moving away from just restrictions and admitting that we in this continent need migration and controlled immigration is a very positive signal. ‘At long last,’ it has to be said. Here, too, however, this much is quite clear: the necessary legal armoury – the bridging clause – which is also in place under the Treaty of Nice, as has been rightly pointed out, is not being used. If I were to describe an objective on the one hand, but on the other hand refuse to use the instruments I needed to achieve this objective, this would not make me very credible. In that respect, this was not a boring Summit, but instead yet another wasted opportunity. For this reason, it is my firm conviction that Parliament must apply further pressure on the Council to take consistent action once and for all and to say that, if we want to manage migration, we have to provide the EU with the legal armoury it needs to actually carry this out.
As all the speakers have now mentioned, Parliament, together with the Finnish Presidency, has brought to a conclusion two important legislative procedures that point the way ahead. My group considers the Services Directive one of the greatest successes to date in terms of shaping the internal market. A destructive neoliberal concept has been turned into socially responsible legislation. The second concerns chemicals policy. At the reception, I noticed representatives of the chemicals industry drinking sparkling wine with representatives of Greenpeace – so it cannot be such a bad piece of legislation. As can be deduced from the heckling, my group worked to ensure that the legislation made it possible to reach a sensible compromise focusing on social equilibrium, industrial good sense and consumer rights. I should like to extend warm thanks once more to Mrs Gebhardt and Mr Sacconi, who carried out pilot work in this connection on behalf of our group, for this great achievement by Parliament under the leadership of our group.
By way of conclusion, I should like to mention Mr Poettering’s reference to the fact that his term of office as Chairman of the PPE-DE Group is coming to an end. I do not want to address all the other Group Chairmen – I shall address him and him alone. We have indeed enjoyed extremely constructive, collegial cooperation, for which I am obliged to him. I should also like to pay Mr Poettering a great compliment. I have to say that he is an extremely skilled politician – something I should like to illustrate with a little example from this morning. Two-and-a-half years on, no one now remarks upon the wording of the phrase ‘speaking for the EPP component of our group’. Of course, the group is called the PPE-DE Group, and this phrasing implies that a whole section of his group is not even given the chance to speak. After all, these are really two political groups, and the PPE component always says the opposite of what the ED part says. In this respect, Mr Poettering has actually managed to be the Chairman of two groups without anyone noticing. That is what I call political skill, and I compliment Mr Poettering on it.
Ladies and gentlemen, a man of this calibre is capable of greater things – just wait and see. I am much obliged to him for the cooperation we have enjoyed. There is one thing that has defined Mr Poettering as a personality since he became an MEP in 1979, and that is that one can disagree with him, argue with him, be annoyed with him or share one’s happiness with him, but the fact always remains that one will never be misled by him. He speaks clearly and is above all reliable. In my opinion, these virtues are rare in politics and, the further one progresses in one’s political career, the rarer they become. When a politician has reached such a high level and has held on to them so tightly, he deserves thanks, recognition and best wishes."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples