Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-10-19-Speech-2-631"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101019.25.2-631"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spokenAs | |
lpv:translated text |
"Commissioner, this debate is about fundamental rights such as non-discrimination and free movement. Yet it has also become a debate on the crucial provisions that govern our work in the European institutions. This means knowing whether a Member State is acting in good faith, whether it is providing reliable information to the European institutions, and so on. Moreover, in view of this, it has also become a debate about whether we, the European institutions, are able to ensure that both these principles and provisions are respected, whether we are able to speak clearly, and whether we can be uncompromising in their defence if necessary.
I believe that we already have clear answers as to the question of good faith. There are Member States, particularly France, which have not acted in good faith. They repeatedly deny the existence of documents, copies of which later appear in public. This also occurred during the summer and it is happening now with databases. How can it be claimed that there are no databases when we have published a database called Roms on a French website on the Internet today, with the cities of origin and a variety of information about Roma people, including those from the EU: from Bucharest, Belgrade and Timişoara?
The answer to the other question is also very important. You said that we had an historic moment, Commissioner, and that historians will recognise that the Commission was clear for the first time. I doubt that greatly, Commission, and I am a historian. I have many doubts because even the journalists have doubts. The day after having gone to the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, some newspapers, like the
wrote that the Commission will not prosecute France. Other newspapers said that it would. Even today, the news is that the case against France has been suspended or, elsewhere, that it has been dropped.
If the Commission is not speaking clearly – and evidently its words are not understood clearly – I would like to say that it will have a formidable ally in Parliament if it does want to speak clearly. If the Commission hesitates, Parliament will not neglect to pursue this case: it will not be a case that occurred during the summer and simply died. It will continue to be spoken of in this House."@en1
|
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples