Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-09-07-Speech-2-353"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2010-09-07"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Situation of the Roma people in Europe (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20100907.28.2-353"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2010-09-07-Speech-2-3542
lpv:speaker	lp:Manfred Weber2
lpv:spokenAs	vice-chair; EPP (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 member; LIBE (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 member; Delegation for relations with India (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 substitute; REGI (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 substitute; DROI (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of the Andean Community (2009-09-16--2013-03-20)3 unknown; Christlich-Soziale Union in Bayern e.V. (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it was no coincidence that we, as the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), allowed our colleague, Mrs Járóka, who is the only representative of the Roma minority in this Parliament, to speak first today. This is because the PPE Group would much prefer to talk about the people’s problems today. We do not want to make a political show – we do not care about Mr Sarkozy – we want to discuss the problems we are facing with the Roma minority and how we can help them. This is also the basis of our resolution. Mr Swoboda, you said that it is scandalous that the Commission has drawn this conclusion. All I can say to that is that it is clearly scandalous to you because the Commission is not joining in with the political show that you want to make of this and has made a serious comment on the situation. Secondly, as regards the freedom of movement, everything has been said already. We have clear ground rules in the European Union. The freedom of movement is not without limit; it can be restricted on an individual basis and that is also what has been done in France. My third point is actually the important one. In the political debate on this issue, it is a question of how we can integrate the minorities in Europe into our societies. If we all accept the fact that we are open-minded and tolerant, then we are on common ground. If, as a second step, we also all accept that around 90% move towards the majority society, that we really join together and take integration seriously, then we are also still in agreement. We are divided on the question of how we should deal with migrants – regardless of what sort of migrants – who just do not accept what the majority society has to offer, who refuse to cooperate, and will not accept the ground rules. The Left in this House repeatedly presents the argument that we need to offer these people something. We in the PPE Group say that the migrants also need to accept the offers. If you do not add this requirement and stipulate it in strong terms, if you do not have a state that calls for this, then you destroy the willingness of citizens to integrate people, and you do the handiwork of the Right in this House if you do not permit the state to use this toughness. It is also permissible to say that."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Applause)"1 "(The speaker agreed to take a blue card question under Rule 149(8))"1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph