Simon Coveney (PPE-DE). – Mr President, under Rule 132 in connection with Rule 170 I rise to propose, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group, that the votes on the Guantánamo motions be postponed for two weeks until the next part-session in Strasbourg. The reason is that a delegation of four MEPs from different political parties has just returned from a visit to Guantánamo. Unfortunately, they have not had an opportunity to contribute to the resolution before the House today. My group believes that by proposing this short postponement, the Members concerned will have time to brief their groups on their visit and help produce an improved text calling for the closure of Guantánamo Bay that, hopefully, all groups can support. This text will thus receive maximum support and will give credibility to Parliament in the build-up to the EU-US Summit at the end of June.
Elmar Brok (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, I wish to endorse this motion. Much as I agree with this resolution’s conclusion that what we are dealing with here is a violation of the rule of law and that this facility must be closed, there are a number of areas in which the arguments and justifications are no longer up to date. I believe that, if we want to maximise our influence on the way this matter is resolved, we do need to be up to date and rally as broad as possible a majority in this House before the summit, in order to be able to bring the necessary influence to bear on it, and so I would ask the House to give Mr Coveney’s proposal its backing.
Francis Wurtz (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I do not think we should give an ambiguous signal on such a vital question. We know what the situation is in Guantanamo. We have been informed of it by the United Nations and by international organisations. Any postponement, therefore, however reluctant, would be interpreted as a sign of hesitation on a subject on which we have to be extremely clear. Consequently, I believe that we must vote today.