Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-12-18-Speech-1-032"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061218.6.1-032"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I would like to thank the Finnish Presidency for the generous commitment with which it has tackled issues of great importance – immigration, the Constitution, climate change – although we hope that you too, with clear Nordic realism, will reach the conclusion, with us, that nuclear energy has nothing whatsoever to do with solving the problem of climate change or emissions, as clearly demonstrated by the delays with your new energy plant, its prohibitive costs and the huge difficulties in completing it, as well as the series of incidents observed in recent months in various European locations, which have been passed over in total silence.
Having thanked the Presidency, I have to say that the direction of the debate, which defines this final summit as a Council towards a Europe of results, leaves me truly perplexed. What are we talking about? With regard to the issue of immigration, the previous Finnish Presidency achieved considerably more significant results in Tampere. With regard to the issue of enlargement, ten years ago, before the accession of Finland, Sweden and Austria, we waged an enormous battle in this Parliament to ensure that the issues of the Constitution and institutional change were tackled earlier and better, as compared with an enlargement carried out hurriedly and which will certainly not benefit the majority of our citizens.
Next, with regard to the Constitution, we have reached the obvious point that many in this Parliament are trying to state, with greater or lesser success, depending on the degree of freedom allowed them by the great coalition: namely, that the text that was rejected in the referendums will obviously not be the same as that which is to be drafted, and that we will obviously have to look for alliances, within and outside the European Institutions, in order to be able to resolve the major problem of institutional reform.
We were also convinced, together with a group of MEPs in this Parliament, that before admitting Cyprus to our Union, it was necessary to resolve the problem of the division of the island, and today we are inheriting this failure to reach a solution by the European Union as a whole. Therefore, quite frankly I can see nothing particularly new or specific. Am I happy with this situation? No, I am not happy, but nonetheless I can see the need for transparency, with respect to our citizens too.
It is clear that we are fully in agreement with the idea that Turkey should remain a partner, that there should be further enlargements and that it is necessary to give the Balkan countries an unambiguous prospect of accession. At the same time, however, we certainly cannot accept the hypocrisy that is being passed off as a great novelty, whereby today talking of institutional reform means, in some way, placing an obstacle in the way of enlargement. We cannot accept it, because it is not the case and should not be the case.
Mr President, before thanking Mr Poettering I would like to touch on one final point, which has to do with relations with Russia. We absolutely must be aware of the fact that the best policy to adopt with regard to President Putin is a policy that makes us independent, or at least as independent as possible, which means reducing our consumption by 30% and promoting renewable energy with even greater conviction. Otherwise, we will always be dependent, if not on Russia then on another country.
Mr President, I too would like to thank Mr Poettering for his kindness towards us and also for the fact that, in some cases, we have managed to work quite well together. On behalf of my group, I would like to offer him our best wishes for his future – which in part also depends on my future, but this remains to be seen – and to express, as well, the wish that he will still be able to fight for Europe, because this Parliament truly has need of champions. On this point he would be following the approach initiated to a certain degree by President Borrell, who has attempted to advance the idea of an autonomous Parliament, with varying degrees of support from his troops.
I also hope that in the future – if you will allow me this personal observation – if Parliament gives him a majority, he will put to one side a certain emphasis that is a little too close to a religion, which benefits neither Europe nor Parliament."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples