Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-09-12-Speech-3-310-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120912.21.3-310-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I stated directly after the Commission’s intervention, or rather before the Commission’s intervention, that I would be guided strictly by the Commission’s findings. I never heard anything like this from you, Mr Weber, or from Mr Daul in the case of Hungary. The same Mr Orbán, who is still the Vice-President of your party, naturally came down on the side of Băsescu, exerting external influence on the decision by the people of Romania, or at least attempting to do so.
Ms Reding, I hold you in great esteem on many counts. However, your observations have once again called into question the objectivity of the Commission. I find that regrettable. You have several times on other occasions referred to a parliamentary coup. This is a contradiction in terms in itself. It is not a coup, however. In Lithuania, a democratically elected president has been dismissed by parliament without a referendum. In the Romanian case, a referendum was held, and there was no talk of a coup at the time. Now we are hearing the word coup being used.
As you are well aware, Mr Weber, Mr Băsescu introduced the 50% provision just before the referendum, in fact while the campaign was still in progress, because he knew what to expect. I am opposed to such measures. Nonetheless, I clearly stated prior to the referendum that it would be necessary to stick to this figure of 50% afterwards. I am very pleased that the government has kept its promise and that this has been changed. The fact is that Mr Ponta is keeping to his promises. It is scandalous to speak of a coup in this context. That is not true. Also, Ms Reding and Mr Weber, why is it that you said nothing in all the months prior to this when Mr Băsescu and his people ruled by emergency decree? What Mr Băsescu did with emergency regulations was alright because they were nothing new. I did not hear any complaints from the Commission either. Then suddenly you turn around and say that this is a scandal. The fact is that when Mr Băsescu and his people did the same thing, it was not a scandal. That is not being objective, and what I demand is objectivity.
This is all very interesting: Mr Băsescu was elected with 5.3 million votes. 7.4 million have now rejected him. That is very interesting. Is it not one of the functions of the president of a state to ensure that people come together in reconciliation? That is not the way of this particular state president. I agree with you, Ms Reding, in that I, too, would like to see all sides play their part here. However, I see no sign of Mr Băsescu playing his part. After all, a figure of 7.4 million means that 2 million more people have now tried to dismiss him from office than voted for him in the first place. You must take note of how popular and how effective a president is when the majority of the population has voted to dismiss him, except for those who boycotted the referendum, because this boycott, which he and Mr Orbán supported, was the only chance he had to survive. I am not concerned with whether this is right or wrong. I simply want to point out that here a man has failed to carry out his duty as president of the country. Many Romanians have recognised this and many continue to do so. As a social democrat I also believe that Mr Băsescu has failed in his task of bringing people together and that we are also feeling the effects of this."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples