Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-06-22-Speech-3-080"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050622.13.3-080"6
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, last week’s European Council was a clear reminder that the European Union cannot carry on with business as usual following the French and Dutch votes on the Constitution. The decision to pause for reflection on the Constitution merely underlines a lack of direction across Europe. When two founding Member States reject the Constitution with no expectation of holding a second vote, it is hard to see the logic of continuing the ratification process. We would have preferred the Council to have acted decisively, accepted the will of the voters and moved on. Of course there still is a time for a real debate about Europe’s future. Like the British Government, we believe that Europe must face up to some profound questions. The move to political integration has reached its high water mark. It is against this backdrop that, with respect, I have to disagree with the President-in-Office when he said that he did not believe the French or the Dutch voters rejected the constitution.
Such statements damage the relationship between politicians and the people, and if ever there was a time for politicians to demonstrate that they are listening, it is now. It would be folly for Europe’s leaders just to ignore the reality of what has happened. This crisis was avoidable: for many years my party has argued for a more flexible Europe. For too long the European integration process has carried on as a project of the political elite. That is now over and we, the representatives of the people, are now charged with conducting further debate on the kind of Europe we want to see.
Those of us who have opposed that integration process have often been criticised, and many in this Chamber believe it is the only way forward, but it is not. In the coming months we will argue positively and enthusiastically for a different kind of Europe that goes with the grain of public opinion and not against it; a Europe that gets away from the obsessions of the past and moves forward with the people’s real agenda, which is jobs, growth and prosperity. That is the way to re-engage the electorate with the European Union.
I regret that on this occasion the Council failed to show the necessary leadership."@en4
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, last week’s European Council was a clear reminder that the European Union cannot carry on with business as usual following the French and Dutch votes on the Constitution. The decision to pause for reflection on the Constitution merely underlines a lack of direction across Europe. When two founding Member States reject the Constitution with no expectation of holding a second vote, it is hard to see the logic of continuing the ratification process. We would have preferred the Council to have acted decisively, accepted the will of the voters and moved on. Of course there still is a time for a real debate about Europe’s future. Like the British Government, we believe that Europe must face up to some profound questions. The move to political integration has reached its high water mark. It is against this backdrop that, with respect, I have to disagree with the President-in-Office when he said that he did not believe the French or the Dutch voters rejected the constitution.
Such statements damage the relationship between politicians and the people, and if ever there was a time for politicians to demonstrate that they are listening, it is now. It would be folly for Europe’s leaders just to ignore the reality of what has happened. This crisis was avoidable: for many years my party has argued for a more flexible Europe. For too long the European integration process has carried on as a project of the political elite. That is now over and we, the representatives of the people, are now charged with conducting further debate on the kind of Europe we want to see.
Those of us who have opposed that integration process have often been criticised, and many in this Chamber believe it is the only way forward, but it is not. In the coming months we will argue positively and enthusiastically for a different kind of Europe that goes with the grain of public opinion and not against it; a Europe that gets away from the obsessions of the past and moves forward with the people’s real agenda, which is jobs, growth and prosperity. That is the way to re-engage the electorate with the European Union.
I regret that on this occasion the Council failed to show the necessary leadership."@cs1
"Hr. formand, Det Europæiske Råd i sidste uge var en tydelig påmindelse om, at EU ikke kan køre videre som hidtil efter den franske og den nederlandske afstemning om forfatningen. Beslutningen om at holde en tænkepause om forfatningen er blot en understregelse af manglen på retning rundt om i Europa. Når to af de oprindelige medlemsstater forkaster forfatningen uden forventninger om, at der kan afholdes en ny afstemning, er det vanskeligt at se det logiske i at fortsætte ratificeringsprocessen. Vi ville have foretrukket, at Rådet havde handlet konsekvent, accepteret vælgernes vilje og så var gået videre. Der er naturligvis stadig tid til en reel drøftelse af Europas fremtid. Som den britiske regering mener vi, at Europa skal tage stilling til nogle grundlæggende spørgsmål. Udviklingen i retning af politisk integration har nået sit højdepunkt. Det er på den baggrund, at jeg med al respekt må erklære mig uenig med rådsformanden, da han sagde, at han ikke mente, at franskmændene og hollænderne forkastede forfatningen.
Sådanne udtalelser skader forholdet mellem politikerne og befolkningen, og tiden er mere end nogensinde inde til, at politikerne viser, at de lytter. Det ville være tåbeligt af Europas ledere at se stort på, hvad der reelt er sket. Krisen kunne være undgået: I mange år har mit parti slået til lyd for et mere fleksibelt Europa. Alt for længe er den europæiske integrationsproces blevet gennemført som den politiske elites projekt. Det er forbi nu, og vi, folkets repræsentanter, har nu til opgave at fortsætte drøftelsen om, hvilket Europa vi ønsker.
De af os, der har modsat os integrationsprocessen, er ofte blevet kritiseret, og mange her i salen mener, at det er den eneste vej frem, men det er det ikke. I de kommende måneder vil vi argumentere positivt og entusiastisk for et andet Europa, der er i overensstemmelse med den offentlige opinion og ikke strider mod den. Et Europa, der gør sig fri af fortidens tvangsforestillinger og arbejder fremad med befolkningens virkelige dagsorden, nemlig arbejdspladser, vækst og fremgang. På den måde kan man på ny få vælgerkorpset engageret i EU.
Jeg beklager, at Rådet ikke formåede at udvise det nødvendige lederskab ved denne lejlighed."@da2
".
Herr Präsident! Der Europäische Rat der vergangenen Woche hat uns nur zu deutlich daran erinnert, dass die Europäische Union im Anschluss an die Verfassungsreferenden in Frankreich und den Niederlanden nicht wie gewohnt fortfahren kann. Die Entscheidung, eine Denkpause für die Verfassung einzulegen, zeigt lediglich, dass man in ganz Europa nicht weiß, wohin der Weg gehen soll. Wenn zwei Gründungsmitglieder die Verfassung ablehnen und nicht die Absicht haben, eine zweite Abstimmung durchzuführen, dann ist nur schwer zu verstehen, mit welchem Argument der Ratifizierungsprozess fortgeführt werden soll. Wir hätten es vorgezogen, wenn der Rat entschlossen gehandelt, den Willen der Wähler akzeptiert hätte und zum nächsten Punkt übergegangen wäre. Natürlich besteht noch die Gelegenheit, eine wirkliche Debatte über die Zukunft Europas zu führen. Wie die britische Regierung sind wir der Auffassung, dass sich Europa einigen grundlegenden Fragen stellen muss. Die politische Integration hat ihren Höhepunkt erreicht. Vor diesem Hintergrund muss ich, bei allem Respekt, dem Ratspräsidenten widersprechen, der nicht glaubt, dass die Franzosen oder die Niederländer die Verfassung abgelehnt haben.
Derartige Aussagen schaden dem Verhältnis zwischen Politikern und Bürgern, und wenn es für Politiker je an der Zeit gewesen ist zu beweisen, dass sie auf die Menschen hören, dann jetzt. Es wäre töricht, wenn die europäischen Entscheidungsträger ihre Augen vor der Realität verschließen würden. Die Krise hätte vermieden werden können: Jahrelang hat sich meine Partei für ein flexibleres Europa eingesetzt. Viel zu lange war die europäische Integration ein Projekt der politischen Elite. Dies ist nun vorbei, und wir, die Volksvertreter, haben nun die Aufgabe, die Debatte darüber fortzuführen, wie unser Europa aussehen soll.
Diejenigen unter uns, die sich gegen diesen Integrationsprozess ausgesprochen haben, waren wiederholter Kritik ausgesetzt, und viele in diesem Parlament vertreten die Auffassung, dass Integration der einzige Weg ist, doch das stimmt nicht. In den kommenden Monaten werden wir uns konstruktiv und voller Enthusiasmus für ein anderes Europa einsetzen, das der öffentlichen Meinung entspricht und nicht widerspricht; ein Europa, das sich von den Trugbildern der Vergangenheit löst und die wirklichen Ziele der Menschen verfolgt, nämlich Arbeitsplätze, Wachstum und Wohlstand. Auf diese Weise können wir den Bezug der Wähler zur Europäischen Union wiederherstellen.
Ich bedauere, dass der Rat in diesem Fall nicht die nötige Führungsstärke unter Beweis stellen konnte."@de9
"Κύριε Πρόεδρε, το Ευρωπαϊκό Συμβούλιο της περασμένης εβδομάδας ήταν μια σαφής υπόμνηση ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση δεν μπορεί να συνεχίσει να λειτουργεί όπως συνήθως, έπειτα από το γαλλικό και το ολλανδικό δημοψήφισμα για το Σύνταγμα. Η απόφαση να κάνουμε μια ανάπαυλα για στοχασμό απλώς υπογραμμίζει την έλλειψη καθοδήγησης σε όλη την Ευρώπη. Όταν δύο ιδρυτικά κράτη μέλη απορρίπτουν το Σύνταγμα, χωρίς προσδοκία να διεξαχθεί δεύτερη ψηφοφορία, είναι δύσκολο να δει κανείς τη λογική της συνέχισης της διαδικασίας επικύρωσης. Θα προτιμούσαμε το Συμβούλιο να είχε ενεργήσει αποφασιστικά, να είχε αποδεχτεί τη θέληση των ψηφοφόρων και να είχε προχωρήσει. Φυσικά υπάρχει ακόμη καιρός για πραγματική συζήτηση σχετικά με το μέλλον της Ευρώπης. Πιστεύουμε, όπως η βρετανική κυβέρνηση, ότι η Ευρώπη πρέπει να αντιμετωπίσει κάποια βαθιά ζητήματα. Η κίνηση για πολιτική ολοκλήρωση έχει αγγίξει το υψηλότερο σημείο της. Σε αυτό το σκηνικό είμαι υποχρεωμένος, με κάθε σεβασμό, να διαφωνήσω με τον προεδρεύοντα, που είπε ότι δεν πιστεύει ότι οι Γάλλοι ή οι Ολλανδοί απέρριψαν το σύνταγμα.
Τέτοιες δηλώσεις ζημιώνουν τη σχέση των πολιτικών με τον λαό και, αν ήταν ποτέ καιρός να αποδείξουν οι πολιτικοί ότι ακούνε, αυτός είναι τώρα. Θα ήταν τρέλα οι ηγέτες της Ευρώπης απλώς να αγνοήσουν την πραγματικότητα αυτού που συνέβη. Αυτή η κρίση ήταν δυνατόν να αποφευχθεί: επί πολλά χρόνια το κόμμα μου υποστηρίζει μια πιο ευέλικτη Ευρώπη. Η διαδικασία της ευρωπαϊκής ολοκλήρωσης προχωρούσε επί υπερβολικά πολύ χρόνο σαν σχέδιο της πολιτικής ελίτ. Αυτά τώρα έχουν τελειώσει και εμείς, οι αντιπρόσωποι του λαού, είμαστε επιφορτισμένοι να διεξαγάγουμε περαιτέρω συζήτηση σχετικά με το είδος της Ευρώπης που θέλουμε να δούμε.
Όσοι από εμάς έχουν αντιταχθεί σε αυτή τη διαδικασία ολοκλήρωσης έχουν συχνά επικριθεί, και πολλοί σε αυτή την αίθουσα νομίζουν ότι αυτός είναι ο μόνος δρόμος προς τα εμπρός, πλην όμως δεν είναι. Στους ερχόμενους μήνες θα επιχειρηματολογήσουμε εποικοδομητικά και με ενθουσιασμό για μια διαφορετικού είδους Ευρώπη που συμβαδίζει με το πνεύμα της κοινής γνώμης και δεν στρέφεται εναντίον της· μιαν Ευρώπη που απομακρύνεται από τις εμμονές του παρελθόντος και προχωρεί σύμφωνα με τις πραγματικές προσδοκίες του λαού, που είναι θέσεις εργασίας, ανάπτυξη και ευημερία. Με αυτόν τον τρόπο θα προσελκύσουμε ξανά το εκλογικό σώμα στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση.
Δυστυχώς, σε αυτή την περίσταση το Συμβούλιο απέτυχε να επιδείξει την αναγκαία ηγετική ικανότητα."@el10
"Señor Presidente, el Consejo Europeo de la semana pasada fue un claro recordatorio de que la Unión Europea no puede hacer como si no hubiera pasado nada después del resultado del referendo celebrado en Francia y los Países Bajos sobre la Constitución. La decisión de hacer una pausa para reflexionar sobre la Constitución indica simplemente una falta de dirección en toda Europa. Cuando dos Estados miembros fundadores rechazan la Constitución sin expectativa alguna de celebrar una segunda votación, resulta difícil encontrar la lógica de continuar con el proceso de ratificación. Hubiéramos preferido que el Consejo actuara con resolución, aceptara la voluntad de los electores y siguiera adelante. Por supuesto, sigue habiendo tiempo para un verdadero debate sobre el futuro de Europa. Al igual que el Gobierno británico, creemos que Europa tiene que enfrentarse a algunas cuestiones profundas. El proceso de integración política ha alcanzado su cota máxima. En este contexto, tengo que discrepar, con todo respeto, del Presidente en ejercicio cuando dice que no cree que los votantes franceses o neerlandeses hayan rechazado la Constitución.
Ese tipo de declaraciones daña la relación entre los políticos y los ciudadanos, y si hay alguna oportunidad de oro para que los políticos demuestren que saben escuchar, esta es una de ellas. Sería una locura que los dirigentes europeos se limitaran a negar la realidad de lo que ha sucedido. Esta crisis podría haberse evitado: durante muchos años, mi partido ha defendido una Europa más flexible. Durante demasiado tiempo, el proceso de integración europea ha seguido adelante como un proyecto de la elite política. Eso se ha acabado y ahora nosotros, los representantes de los ciudadanos, tenemos la obligación de seguir adelante con el debate sobre el tipo de Europa que queremos construir.
Aquellos de nosotros que nos hemos opuesto a ese proceso de integración hemos sido objeto de numerosas críticas y muchos en esa Cámara creen que ese es el único camino posible, pero no lo es. En los próximos meses debatiremos con espíritu positivo y entusiasta un modelo diferente de Europa que esté más en consonancia con la opinión pública y no en su contra; una Europa que abandone las obsesiones del pasado y avance en las cuestiones que realmente preocupan a los ciudadanos, que son el empleo, el crecimiento y la prosperidad. Esa es la forma de recuperar el interés del electorado por la Unión Europa.
Lamento que, en esta ocasión, el Consejo haya sido incapaz de demostrar el liderazgo necesario."@es20
"Mr President, last week’s European Council was a clear reminder that the European Union cannot carry on with business as usual following the French and Dutch votes on the Constitution. The decision to pause for reflection on the Constitution merely underlines a lack of direction across Europe. When two founding Member States reject the Constitution with no expectation of holding a second vote, it is hard to see the logic of continuing the ratification process. We would have preferred the Council to have acted decisively, accepted the will of the voters and moved on. Of course there still is a time for a real debate about Europe’s future. Like the British Government, we believe that Europe must face up to some profound questions. The move to political integration has reached its high water mark. It is against this backdrop that, with respect, I have to disagree with the President-in-Office when he said that he did not believe the French or the Dutch voters rejected the constitution.
Such statements damage the relationship between politicians and the people, and if ever there was a time for politicians to demonstrate that they are listening, it is now. It would be folly for Europe’s leaders just to ignore the reality of what has happened. This crisis was avoidable: for many years my party has argued for a more flexible Europe. For too long the European integration process has carried on as a project of the political elite. That is now over and we, the representatives of the people, are now charged with conducting further debate on the kind of Europe we want to see.
Those of us who have opposed that integration process have often been criticised, and many in this Chamber believe it is the only way forward, but it is not. In the coming months we will argue positively and enthusiastically for a different kind of Europe that goes with the grain of public opinion and not against it; a Europe that gets away from the obsessions of the past and moves forward with the people’s real agenda, which is jobs, growth and prosperity. That is the way to re-engage the electorate with the European Union.
I regret that on this occasion the Council failed to show the necessary leadership."@et5
"Arvoisa puhemies, viimeviikkoinen Eurooppa-neuvoston kokous oli selkeä muistutus siitä, ettei Euroopan unioni voi jatkaa entiseen tapaan Ranskan ja Alankomaiden perustuslakia koskevien kansanäänestysten jälkeen. Päätös pysähtyä pohtimaan perustuslakia pelkästään korostaa sitä, että eurooppalaiselta politiikalta puuttuu suunta koko EU:ssa. Kun kaksi yhteisön perustajajäsentä hylkää perustuslain eikä uutta äänestystä ole odotettavissa, on vaikea ymmärtää perusteita ratifiointiprosessin jatkamiselle. Olisimme toivoneet neuvoston toimivan päättäväisesti, hyväksyvän äänestäjien tahdon ja siirtyvän eteenpäin. Meillä on tietysti vielä aikaa käydä todellista keskustelua Euroopan tulevaisuudesta. Uskomme Ison-Britannian hallituksen tapaan, että Euroopan on käsiteltävä joitakin perimmäisiä kysymyksiä. Poliittinen yhdentymisprosessi on saavuttanut lakipisteensä. Tätä taustaa vasten minun on kaikella kunnioituksella oltava eri mieltä neuvoston puheenjohtajan kanssa, kun hän totesi, ettei usko ranskalaisten tai alankomaalaisten äänestäjien hylänneen perustuslakia.
Tällaiset lausunnot vahingoittavat poliitikkojen ja kansalaisten välistä suhdetta, ja juuri nyt poliitikkojen on aika osoittaa kuuntelevansa kansalaisia. Eurooppalaiset johtajat olisivat hulluja, jos ne eivät välitä siitä, mitä todellisuudessa on tapahtunut. Tämä kriisi olisi voitu välttää: puolueeni on useiden vuosien ajan vaatinut joustavampaa Eurooppaa. Euroopan yhdentymisprosessi on jatkunut liian kauan poliittisen eliitin hankkeena. Nämä ajat ovat nyt ohi, ja meillä kansalaisten edustajina on velvollisuus jatkaa keskustelua siitä, millaisen Euroopan haluamme.
Yhdentymisprosessia vastustaviin parlamentin jäseniin on kohdistettu usein arvostelua, ja monet täällä salissa uskovat, että yhdentymisen vastustaminen on ainoa tapa edetä, mutta näin ei ole. Tulevina kuukausina ajamme myönteisesti ja innolla toisenlaista Eurooppaa, jossa otetaan kansalaisten mielipiteet huomioon. Eurooppaa, joka hylkää aiemmat pakkomielteensä ja jatkaa työtään kansalaisille todella tärkeiden asioiden parissa. Näitä ovat työpaikat, kasvu ja hyvinvointi. Näin äänestäjät voidaan saada sitoutumaan uudelleen Euroopan unioniin.
Pahoittelen sitä, ettei neuvosto tällä kertaa onnistunut osoittamaan tarvittavaa johtajuutta."@fi7
"Monsieur le Président, le Conseil européen de la semaine dernière nous a clairement rappelé que l’Union européenne ne peut continuer comme si de rien n’était à la suite des votes français et néerlandais sur la Constitution. La décision de faire une pause pour réfléchir à la Constitution met simplement en exergue un manque de direction dans l’ensemble de l’Europe. Lorsque deux États membres fondateurs rejettent la Constitution et qu’il y a peu de chances qu’un deuxième tour soit organisé, il n’est guère logique de poursuivre le processus de ratification. Nous aurions préféré que le Conseil agisse avec fermeté, accepte la volonté des votants et poursuive son travail. Bien évidemment, il est encore temps de mener un véritable débat sur l’avenir de l’Europe. À l’instar du gouvernement britannique, nous croyons que l’Europe doit faire face à quelques profondes questions. Le passage à l’intégration politique a atteint son comble. C’est dans ce contexte que, avec tout mon respect, je me vois contraint de marquer mon désaccord avec les paroles prononcées par le président en exercice lorsqu’il a déclaré qu’il ne pensait pas que les votants français ou néerlandais avaient rejeté la Constitution.
De telles déclarations portent atteinte à la relation entre les responsables politiques et les citoyens et, s’il y a bien un moment où les responsables politiques doivent prouver qu’ils sont à l’écoute, c’est maintenant. Les dirigeants de l’Europe seraient fous de simplement ignorer la réalité. Cette crise était évitable: cela fait des années que mon parti prône une Europe plus flexible. Pendant trop longtemps, le processus d’intégration européenne a pris la forme d’un projet de l’élite politique. Ce temps est désormais révolu et nous, les représentants du peuple, sommes maintenant chargés de poursuivre le débat sur le type d’Europe que nous souhaitons.
Ceux d’entre nous qui se sont opposés à ce processus d’intégration ont souvent été critiqués et beaucoup de députés de cette Assemblée pensent que c’est la seule façon de progresser, mais ce n’est pas vrai. Au cours des mois à venir, nous plaiderons positivement et avec enthousiasme en faveur d’une Europe d’un genre différent, qui aille dans le sens de l’opinion publique et non à son encontre; une Europe qui se défasse des obsessions du passé et fasse progresser le véritable programme des citoyens, à savoir l’emploi, la croissance et la prospérité. Telle est la façon de réengager l’électorat auprès de l’Union européenne.
Je regrette qu’à cette occasion, le Conseil n’ait pas fait preuve des capacités de direction nécessaires."@fr8
"Mr President, last week’s European Council was a clear reminder that the European Union cannot carry on with business as usual following the French and Dutch votes on the Constitution. The decision to pause for reflection on the Constitution merely underlines a lack of direction across Europe. When two founding Member States reject the Constitution with no expectation of holding a second vote, it is hard to see the logic of continuing the ratification process. We would have preferred the Council to have acted decisively, accepted the will of the voters and moved on. Of course there still is a time for a real debate about Europe’s future. Like the British Government, we believe that Europe must face up to some profound questions. The move to political integration has reached its high water mark. It is against this backdrop that, with respect, I have to disagree with the President-in-Office when he said that he did not believe the French or the Dutch voters rejected the constitution.
Such statements damage the relationship between politicians and the people, and if ever there was a time for politicians to demonstrate that they are listening, it is now. It would be folly for Europe’s leaders just to ignore the reality of what has happened. This crisis was avoidable: for many years my party has argued for a more flexible Europe. For too long the European integration process has carried on as a project of the political elite. That is now over and we, the representatives of the people, are now charged with conducting further debate on the kind of Europe we want to see.
Those of us who have opposed that integration process have often been criticised, and many in this Chamber believe it is the only way forward, but it is not. In the coming months we will argue positively and enthusiastically for a different kind of Europe that goes with the grain of public opinion and not against it; a Europe that gets away from the obsessions of the past and moves forward with the people’s real agenda, which is jobs, growth and prosperity. That is the way to re-engage the electorate with the European Union.
I regret that on this occasion the Council failed to show the necessary leadership."@hu11
"Signor Presidente, il Consiglio europeo della settimana scorsa ha dimostrato chiaramente che, dopo il voto espresso da Francia e Paesi Bassi sulla Costituzione, l’Unione europea non può continuare a comportarsi come se nulla fosse. La decisione di fermarsi a riflettere sulla Costituzione non fa che evidenziare una mancanza di direzione in Europa. Quando due Stati membri fondatori respingono la Costituzione senza alcuna probabilità che si tenga una seconda votazione, è difficile capire quale senso possa avere continuare il processo di ratifica. Sarebbe stato meglio se il Consiglio avesse agito con determinazione, avesse accettato la volontà degli elettori e fosse andato oltre. Ovviamente c’è ancora tempo per tenere un vero dibattito sul futuro dell’Europa. Come il governo britannico, crediamo che l’Europa debba affrontare alcune gravi questioni. Il processo d’integrazione politica è giunto al culmine ed è a partire da questo presupposto che, con il debito rispetto, devo dissentire dal Presidente in carica del Consiglio quando afferma che non crede che gli elettori francesi e olandesi abbiano respinto la Costituzione.
Tali dichiarazioni danneggiano le relazioni tra i politici e la gente e, se c’è un momento in cui i politici devono dimostrare di sapere ascoltare, è questo. I
europei sarebbero folli se si limitassero a ignorare la realtà di ciò che è accaduto. Questa crisi si poteva evitare: per molti anni il mio partito si è battuto per un’Europa più flessibile. Troppo a lungo il progetto d’integrazione europea è stato portato avanti come il progetto di una
politica. Ormai quell’epoca è finita e noi, rappresentanti dei cittadini, abbiamo ora il dovere di condurre ulteriori dibattiti sul tipo di Europa che vogliamo veder nascere.
Chi di noi si è opposto al progetto d’integrazione è stato spesso criticato, e molti in quest’Aula sono convinti che l’unica strada da seguire sia quella, ma non è così. Nei prossimi mesi ci batteremo positivamente ed entusiasticamente a favore di un’Europa diversa, allineata, e non contraria, al sentire dell’opinione pubblica; un’Europa che sappia scrollarsi di dosso le ossessioni del passato e compiere progressi nelle materie che sono davvero importanti per i cittadini, ovvero l’occupazione, la crescita e la prosperità. E’ così che si ravvicina l’elettorato all’Unione europea.
Mi spiace che in quest’occasione il Consiglio non sia riuscito a dare prova della
necessaria."@it12
"Mr President, last week’s European Council was a clear reminder that the European Union cannot carry on with business as usual following the French and Dutch votes on the Constitution. The decision to pause for reflection on the Constitution merely underlines a lack of direction across Europe. When two founding Member States reject the Constitution with no expectation of holding a second vote, it is hard to see the logic of continuing the ratification process. We would have preferred the Council to have acted decisively, accepted the will of the voters and moved on. Of course there still is a time for a real debate about Europe’s future. Like the British Government, we believe that Europe must face up to some profound questions. The move to political integration has reached its high water mark. It is against this backdrop that, with respect, I have to disagree with the President-in-Office when he said that he did not believe the French or the Dutch voters rejected the constitution.
Such statements damage the relationship between politicians and the people, and if ever there was a time for politicians to demonstrate that they are listening, it is now. It would be folly for Europe’s leaders just to ignore the reality of what has happened. This crisis was avoidable: for many years my party has argued for a more flexible Europe. For too long the European integration process has carried on as a project of the political elite. That is now over and we, the representatives of the people, are now charged with conducting further debate on the kind of Europe we want to see.
Those of us who have opposed that integration process have often been criticised, and many in this Chamber believe it is the only way forward, but it is not. In the coming months we will argue positively and enthusiastically for a different kind of Europe that goes with the grain of public opinion and not against it; a Europe that gets away from the obsessions of the past and moves forward with the people’s real agenda, which is jobs, growth and prosperity. That is the way to re-engage the electorate with the European Union.
I regret that on this occasion the Council failed to show the necessary leadership."@lt14
"Mr President, last week’s European Council was a clear reminder that the European Union cannot carry on with business as usual following the French and Dutch votes on the Constitution. The decision to pause for reflection on the Constitution merely underlines a lack of direction across Europe. When two founding Member States reject the Constitution with no expectation of holding a second vote, it is hard to see the logic of continuing the ratification process. We would have preferred the Council to have acted decisively, accepted the will of the voters and moved on. Of course there still is a time for a real debate about Europe’s future. Like the British Government, we believe that Europe must face up to some profound questions. The move to political integration has reached its high water mark. It is against this backdrop that, with respect, I have to disagree with the President-in-Office when he said that he did not believe the French or the Dutch voters rejected the constitution.
Such statements damage the relationship between politicians and the people, and if ever there was a time for politicians to demonstrate that they are listening, it is now. It would be folly for Europe’s leaders just to ignore the reality of what has happened. This crisis was avoidable: for many years my party has argued for a more flexible Europe. For too long the European integration process has carried on as a project of the political elite. That is now over and we, the representatives of the people, are now charged with conducting further debate on the kind of Europe we want to see.
Those of us who have opposed that integration process have often been criticised, and many in this Chamber believe it is the only way forward, but it is not. In the coming months we will argue positively and enthusiastically for a different kind of Europe that goes with the grain of public opinion and not against it; a Europe that gets away from the obsessions of the past and moves forward with the people’s real agenda, which is jobs, growth and prosperity. That is the way to re-engage the electorate with the European Union.
I regret that on this occasion the Council failed to show the necessary leadership."@lv13
"Mr President, last week’s European Council was a clear reminder that the European Union cannot carry on with business as usual following the French and Dutch votes on the Constitution. The decision to pause for reflection on the Constitution merely underlines a lack of direction across Europe. When two founding Member States reject the Constitution with no expectation of holding a second vote, it is hard to see the logic of continuing the ratification process. We would have preferred the Council to have acted decisively, accepted the will of the voters and moved on. Of course there still is a time for a real debate about Europe’s future. Like the British Government, we believe that Europe must face up to some profound questions. The move to political integration has reached its high water mark. It is against this backdrop that, with respect, I have to disagree with the President-in-Office when he said that he did not believe the French or the Dutch voters rejected the constitution.
Such statements damage the relationship between politicians and the people, and if ever there was a time for politicians to demonstrate that they are listening, it is now. It would be folly for Europe’s leaders just to ignore the reality of what has happened. This crisis was avoidable: for many years my party has argued for a more flexible Europe. For too long the European integration process has carried on as a project of the political elite. That is now over and we, the representatives of the people, are now charged with conducting further debate on the kind of Europe we want to see.
Those of us who have opposed that integration process have often been criticised, and many in this Chamber believe it is the only way forward, but it is not. In the coming months we will argue positively and enthusiastically for a different kind of Europe that goes with the grain of public opinion and not against it; a Europe that gets away from the obsessions of the past and moves forward with the people’s real agenda, which is jobs, growth and prosperity. That is the way to re-engage the electorate with the European Union.
I regret that on this occasion the Council failed to show the necessary leadership."@mt15
"Mijnheer de Voorzitter, de Europese Raad van vorige week heeft duidelijk gemaakt dat de Europese Unie na de Franse en Nederlandse referenda niet kan doorgaan alsof er niets aan de hand is. Het besluit een pauze in te lassen om na te denken over de Grondwet onderstreept alleen maar dat in heel Europa sprake is van richtingloosheid. Wanneer twee lidstaten die aan de wieg van de EU hebben gestaan, de Grondwet verwerpen zonder dat er uitzicht is op een tweede stemming, dan is het moeilijk de logica in te zien van een voortzetting van het ratificatieproces. Wij zouden liever hebben gezien dat de Raad doortastend was opgetreden, zich had neergelegd bij de wens van de kiezers en verder was gegaan. Natuurlijk is er nog steeds tijd voor een echt debat over de toekomst van Europa. Net als de Britse regering zijn wij van mening dat Europa een aantal fundamentele vragen onder ogen moet zien. De ontwikkeling in de richting van politieke integratie heeft een kritieke grens bereikt. Dit alles in aanmerking genomen ben ik het dan ook, met respect, oneens met de fungerend voorzitter wanneer hij zegt dat hij weigert te geloven dat de Franse of Nederlandse kiezers de Grondwet hebben verworpen.
Dergelijke verklaringen schaden de relatie tussen politici en burgers, en als politici ooit moeten laten zien dat ze luisteren, dan is het wel nu. Het zou dwaasheid zijn als de Europese leiders de realiteit van wat er gebeurd is gewoonweg zouden negeren. Deze crisis had voorkomen kunnen worden: mijn partij pleit al vele jaren voor een flexibeler Europa. Te lang is het proces van de Europese integratie een project van de politieke elite geweest. Dat is nu voorbij en wij, de vertegenwoordigers van het volk, hebben nu de taak verder te debatteren over de vraag wat voor een Europa we willen.
Op degenen onder ons die zich tegen dat integratieproces hebben verzet, is vaak kritiek geleverd, en velen in dit Parlement menen dat integratie de enige weg voorwaarts is, maar dat is niet zo. De komende maanden zullen we positief en enthousiast pleiten voor een ander soort Europa, een Europa dat overeenstemt met de publieke opinie en niet daartegenin gaat; een Europa dat de obsessies van het verleden achter zich laat en vorderingen maakt op de gebieden die de mensen werkelijk belangrijk vinden, namelijk werkgelegenheid, groei en welvaart. Dat is de manier waarop we het contact kunnen herstellen met de kiezers van de Europese Unie.
Ik betreur het dat de Raad bij deze gelegenheid niet het noodzakelijk leiderschap heeft getoond."@nl3
"Mr President, last week’s European Council was a clear reminder that the European Union cannot carry on with business as usual following the French and Dutch votes on the Constitution. The decision to pause for reflection on the Constitution merely underlines a lack of direction across Europe. When two founding Member States reject the Constitution with no expectation of holding a second vote, it is hard to see the logic of continuing the ratification process. We would have preferred the Council to have acted decisively, accepted the will of the voters and moved on. Of course there still is a time for a real debate about Europe’s future. Like the British Government, we believe that Europe must face up to some profound questions. The move to political integration has reached its high water mark. It is against this backdrop that, with respect, I have to disagree with the President-in-Office when he said that he did not believe the French or the Dutch voters rejected the constitution.
Such statements damage the relationship between politicians and the people, and if ever there was a time for politicians to demonstrate that they are listening, it is now. It would be folly for Europe’s leaders just to ignore the reality of what has happened. This crisis was avoidable: for many years my party has argued for a more flexible Europe. For too long the European integration process has carried on as a project of the political elite. That is now over and we, the representatives of the people, are now charged with conducting further debate on the kind of Europe we want to see.
Those of us who have opposed that integration process have often been criticised, and many in this Chamber believe it is the only way forward, but it is not. In the coming months we will argue positively and enthusiastically for a different kind of Europe that goes with the grain of public opinion and not against it; a Europe that gets away from the obsessions of the past and moves forward with the people’s real agenda, which is jobs, growth and prosperity. That is the way to re-engage the electorate with the European Union.
I regret that on this occasion the Council failed to show the necessary leadership."@pl16
"Senhor Presidente, o Conselho Europeu da semana passada foi um claro lembrete de que a União Europeia não pode prosseguir a sua actividade habitual depois da votação francesa e neerlandesa relativamente à Constituição. A decisão de parar para reflectir sobre a Constituição apenas vem sublinhar a falta de rumo que se faz sentir em toda a Europa. Quando dois Estados-Membros fundadores rejeitam a Constituição sem expectativas de realizar uma segunda votação, é difícil ver qual a lógica de continuar o processo de ratificação. Preferíamos que o Conselho tivesse agido com decisão, tivesse aceitado a vontade dos eleitores e seguido em frente. É evidente que ainda há tempo para realizar um verdadeiro debate sobre o futuro da Europa. Tal como o Governo britânico, estamos convencidos de que a Europa tem de enfrentar e dar resposta a algumas questões profundas. A caminhada em direcção à integração política atingiu o seu nível máximo. É neste enquadramento que, com todo o respeito, não posso deixar de discordar do Senhor Presidente em exercício quando afirmou que não acreditava que os eleitores franceses ou neerlandeses rejeitassem a Constituição.
Afirmações deste tipo prejudicam a relação entre os políticos e o povo, e se alguma vez existiu uma ocasião em que os políticos devessem demonstrar que estão a ouvir o que se lhes diz, é esta essa ocasião. Seria uma loucura os dirigentes europeus ignorarem, pura e simplesmente, a realidade do que aconteceu. A presente crise era inevitável: há muitos anos que o meu partido defende uma Europa mais flexível. Há demasiado tempo que o processo de integração europeia segue em frente como projecto da elite política. Isso agora acabou e nós, os representantes dos cidadãos, temos neste momento a incumbência de continuar a conduzir o debate sobre o tipo de Europa que queremos ver.
Aqueles de nós que se opuseram ao referido processo de integração foram frequentemente criticados, e há muitos elementos nesta Câmara que consideram que esse processo é a única forma de avançar, mas não é. Nos próximos meses defenderemos de forma positiva e entusiástica um tipo de Europa diferente, que vá ao encontro da opinião pública e não contra ela; uma Europa que se afaste das obsessões do passado e avance em conformidade com as questões que verdadeiramente interessam aos cidadãos - postos de trabalho, crescimento e prosperidade. É essa a forma de voltar a empenhar o eleitorado na União Europeia.
Lamento que nesta ocasião o Conselho não conseguisse mostrar a liderança necessária."@pt17
"Mr President, last week’s European Council was a clear reminder that the European Union cannot carry on with business as usual following the French and Dutch votes on the Constitution. The decision to pause for reflection on the Constitution merely underlines a lack of direction across Europe. When two founding Member States reject the Constitution with no expectation of holding a second vote, it is hard to see the logic of continuing the ratification process. We would have preferred the Council to have acted decisively, accepted the will of the voters and moved on. Of course there still is a time for a real debate about Europe’s future. Like the British Government, we believe that Europe must face up to some profound questions. The move to political integration has reached its high water mark. It is against this backdrop that, with respect, I have to disagree with the President-in-Office when he said that he did not believe the French or the Dutch voters rejected the constitution.
Such statements damage the relationship between politicians and the people, and if ever there was a time for politicians to demonstrate that they are listening, it is now. It would be folly for Europe’s leaders just to ignore the reality of what has happened. This crisis was avoidable: for many years my party has argued for a more flexible Europe. For too long the European integration process has carried on as a project of the political elite. That is now over and we, the representatives of the people, are now charged with conducting further debate on the kind of Europe we want to see.
Those of us who have opposed that integration process have often been criticised, and many in this Chamber believe it is the only way forward, but it is not. In the coming months we will argue positively and enthusiastically for a different kind of Europe that goes with the grain of public opinion and not against it; a Europe that gets away from the obsessions of the past and moves forward with the people’s real agenda, which is jobs, growth and prosperity. That is the way to re-engage the electorate with the European Union.
I regret that on this occasion the Council failed to show the necessary leadership."@sk18
"Mr President, last week’s European Council was a clear reminder that the European Union cannot carry on with business as usual following the French and Dutch votes on the Constitution. The decision to pause for reflection on the Constitution merely underlines a lack of direction across Europe. When two founding Member States reject the Constitution with no expectation of holding a second vote, it is hard to see the logic of continuing the ratification process. We would have preferred the Council to have acted decisively, accepted the will of the voters and moved on. Of course there still is a time for a real debate about Europe’s future. Like the British Government, we believe that Europe must face up to some profound questions. The move to political integration has reached its high water mark. It is against this backdrop that, with respect, I have to disagree with the President-in-Office when he said that he did not believe the French or the Dutch voters rejected the constitution.
Such statements damage the relationship between politicians and the people, and if ever there was a time for politicians to demonstrate that they are listening, it is now. It would be folly for Europe’s leaders just to ignore the reality of what has happened. This crisis was avoidable: for many years my party has argued for a more flexible Europe. For too long the European integration process has carried on as a project of the political elite. That is now over and we, the representatives of the people, are now charged with conducting further debate on the kind of Europe we want to see.
Those of us who have opposed that integration process have often been criticised, and many in this Chamber believe it is the only way forward, but it is not. In the coming months we will argue positively and enthusiastically for a different kind of Europe that goes with the grain of public opinion and not against it; a Europe that gets away from the obsessions of the past and moves forward with the people’s real agenda, which is jobs, growth and prosperity. That is the way to re-engage the electorate with the European Union.
I regret that on this occasion the Council failed to show the necessary leadership."@sl19
"Herr talman! Förra veckans Europeiska råd var en påminnelse om att Europeiska unionen inte kan fortsätta sin verksamhet som vanligt till följd av de franska och nederländska rösterna om konstitutionen. Beslutet att ta paus för eftertanke om konstitutionen understryker helt och hållet en brist på riktlinjer i hela Europa. När två av de medlemsstater som var med och grundade Europeiska unionen förkastar konstitutionen utan utsikter till att genomföra en andra omröstning, är det svårt att se logiken i att fortsätta ratificeringsprocessen. Vi hade föredragit att rådet skulle ha handlat med beslutsamhet, accepterat de röstandes vilja och fortsatt framåt. Här finns naturligtvis fortfarande tid för en riktig debatt om Europas framtid. I likhet med den brittiska regeringen anser vi att Europa måste ta itu med några grundläggande frågor. Utspelet om politisk integration har nått sin kulmen. Det är mot detta bakslag som jag, med respekt, måste invända mot rådsordföranden när han säger att han inte trodde på de röstande i Frankrike och Nederländerna när de förkastade konstitutionen.
Sådana yttranden förstör förhållandet mellan politiker och folket, och om det någonsin funnes en tidpunkt för politiker att visa att de lyssnar, då är den tiden inne. Det vore dåraktigt om Europas ledare skulle ignorera verkligheten i det som hände. Krisen var oundviklig, och i flera år har mitt parti argumenterat för ett mer flexibelt Europa. Den europeiska integrationsprocessen har alldeles för länge pågått som ett projekt för den politiska eliten. Nu är det över, och vi, folkets företrädare, straffas nu med att föra ytterligare debatter om det Europa vi vill se.
De av oss som har motsatt sig integrationsprocessen har ofta kritiserats, och många i kammaren anser att det är det enda sättet att gå framåt, men det är det inte. De följande månaderna kommer vi positivt och entusiastiskt att argumentera för det slags Europa som inte strider mot den allmänna opinionen utan följer den, ett Europa som frångår fixeringen vid den förgångna tiden och som går framåt med folkets riktiga program, vilket är arbeten, tillväxt och välstånd. Det är lösningen till att återigen engagera väljarkåren i Europeiska unionen.
Jag beklagar att rådet under detta tillfälle misslyckades med att visa det nödvändiga ledarskapet."@sv21
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"EN"10
"Timothy Kirkhope (PPE-DE )."5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,10,13,4
"leader"12
"élite"12
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples