On April 13 we discussed in plenary on Cuba, as we have done so many times this term, in May 2008, June, October, November and December 2009 or February of this year.
But the last 13 we discuss not only Cuba, but we were able to adopt a text with the consensus of the vast majority of this House, As happened in the Senate, showing that if we share the struggle for democracy, human rights struggle and the struggle for freedom, we are also able to share a resolution to send a clear message.
might remind you that the fight for freedom is one of the hallmarks of the group they represent, the Socialist party: not just about the freedom of others, but of our country. So do not go to admit, it is morally dishonest to accuse us of complacency to violations on human rights and freedoms or connivance and relativism in defense of freedom, or accuse us of passivity. The position
socialist government that there is nothing. Many may disagree on the method, but that does not authorize them to make such statements.
Precisely because our experience, our memory, we know better than most the importance of giving all messages that reinforce our credibility.
Yes, we believe that the international community must act multilaterally, by consensus, because the joint and united action gives much more strength.
And yes, we also believe that the internal unity of the English political forces, especially in the case of Cuba by the historical ties that bind us to the island, we will have a greater impact positions to defend.
The PP claims to seek more pressure against the Cuban regime, but all I want is to use as a political partisan an issue as important as this. Do you think there may be a greater and more intense pressure to agree a position? The PP, not interested in freedom and democracy in Cuba, if not respect the agreements reached.
get this deal just two weeks ago in Congress and in the Senate, as I said, but today, it seeks to reopen the issue and, frankly, I do not think that the external committee is to amend the plenary. It also seeks to reopen the issue without justification, have been only few days, and there has been no change that would warrant further discussion of the agreement.
Because the value is the Covenant, ladies and gentlemen, beyond the literal interpretation of the phrase, keep the "flame" is to maintain unity. Look
ladies and gentlemen, no policy to Cuba successful achievement in the sense of immediately obtaining the fruits we all want for the Cuban people, but what has become abundantly clear is that the art of confrontation (by the way in which the Cuban regime feels like a fish in water, because it is the only one they know and that fuel for convenience) the art of confrontation, he said, defended by people's governments did not give even a result. Not one: there was more political prisoners than ever (the Black Spring of 2003 is a good example) and not a liberation, no opening in recognition of freedoms, no progress on strengthening democratic institutions, NOTHING. Absolutely nothing.
At this point, my question is why, why if we share the diagnosis and share objectives, though differing in method, why if we have been able, at some point, agree to convey a message of unity and we have reached a consensus, we are discussing a text, why are we looking for a text that we have found. The
Ms. Valencia, a socialist spokesman said at the end of his speech in full: "We will try to build together a text that is, really, the plural expression and majority of this House. That is our proposal, that is what we intended to substitute our amendment and thus call your lordships. "
Well ladies and gentlemen, we have a text, we have the text that we demanded, we passed in the House. All work in the direction of that brand to develop, to ensure that each of the items adopted by this camera, by an overwhelming majority, a reality. That is the true meaning of state, which much talk and so little it is and that's the biggest pressure that this legislature can exercise.
What greater step forward is an agreement?
to achieve freedom for all, we need the unity of all. Send messages of support
requires continuous covenant not to break the pact.
But the last 13 we discuss not only Cuba, but we were able to adopt a text with the consensus of the vast majority of this House, As happened in the Senate, showing that if we share the struggle for democracy, human rights struggle and the struggle for freedom, we are also able to share a resolution to send a clear message.
might remind you that the fight for freedom is one of the hallmarks of the group they represent, the Socialist party: not just about the freedom of others, but of our country. So do not go to admit, it is morally dishonest to accuse us of complacency to violations on human rights and freedoms or connivance and relativism in defense of freedom, or accuse us of passivity. The position
socialist government that there is nothing. Many may disagree on the method, but that does not authorize them to make such statements.
Precisely because our experience, our memory, we know better than most the importance of giving all messages that reinforce our credibility.
Yes, we believe that the international community must act multilaterally, by consensus, because the joint and united action gives much more strength.
And yes, we also believe that the internal unity of the English political forces, especially in the case of Cuba by the historical ties that bind us to the island, we will have a greater impact positions to defend.
The PP claims to seek more pressure against the Cuban regime, but all I want is to use as a political partisan an issue as important as this. Do you think there may be a greater and more intense pressure to agree a position? The PP, not interested in freedom and democracy in Cuba, if not respect the agreements reached.
get this deal just two weeks ago in Congress and in the Senate, as I said, but today, it seeks to reopen the issue and, frankly, I do not think that the external committee is to amend the plenary. It also seeks to reopen the issue without justification, have been only few days, and there has been no change that would warrant further discussion of the agreement.
Because the value is the Covenant, ladies and gentlemen, beyond the literal interpretation of the phrase, keep the "flame" is to maintain unity. Look
ladies and gentlemen, no policy to Cuba successful achievement in the sense of immediately obtaining the fruits we all want for the Cuban people, but what has become abundantly clear is that the art of confrontation (by the way in which the Cuban regime feels like a fish in water, because it is the only one they know and that fuel for convenience) the art of confrontation, he said, defended by people's governments did not give even a result. Not one: there was more political prisoners than ever (the Black Spring of 2003 is a good example) and not a liberation, no opening in recognition of freedoms, no progress on strengthening democratic institutions, NOTHING. Absolutely nothing.
At this point, my question is why, why if we share the diagnosis and share objectives, though differing in method, why if we have been able, at some point, agree to convey a message of unity and we have reached a consensus, we are discussing a text, why are we looking for a text that we have found. The
Ms. Valencia, a socialist spokesman said at the end of his speech in full: "We will try to build together a text that is, really, the plural expression and majority of this House. That is our proposal, that is what we intended to substitute our amendment and thus call your lordships. "
Well ladies and gentlemen, we have a text, we have the text that we demanded, we passed in the House. All work in the direction of that brand to develop, to ensure that each of the items adopted by this camera, by an overwhelming majority, a reality. That is the true meaning of state, which much talk and so little it is and that's the biggest pressure that this legislature can exercise.
What greater step forward is an agreement?
to achieve freedom for all, we need the unity of all. Send messages of support
requires continuous covenant not to break the pact.
0 comments:
Post a Comment