Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-16-Speech-4-181"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech⁶
dcterms:Date	"2006-02-16"^^xsd:date⁶
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Rahvusvahelise Valuutafondi strateegiline läbivaatamine (arutelu)⁶
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language⁶
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060216.20.4-181"⁶
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-02-16-Speech-4-182⁶
lpv:speaker	lp:Nigel Farage⁶
lpv:spoken text	". Mr President, this debate gets to the very heart of what the European Union is all about. In the United Kingdom – and I am sure in many other countries – the argument that was used when we first joined and continues to be used is that we are in the EU because we have greater influence in the world if we speak together with one voice. Well, I look at the WTO; I look at trade talks, where already no individual state may speak on her own behalf. What do I see? I see a Hong Kong summit that failed in December, despite the generous offer made by the Americans, and I see a situation where certainly the globe’s third largest trading nation could have done a rather better job for herself. This proposal for a single European seat is certainly not going to suit Britain, Denmark, or Sweden. We are not even in the euro. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, 1976 – when we went cap in hand to the IMF – is a dim and distant memory. A single IMF seat is not about economic logic; it is purely about politics. It is purely about turning the European Union into an international superstate. As we heard in one or two of the previous speeches, it is about standing up and forming a bloc to oppose America. The same logic is being applied elsewhere when it comes to the United Nations Security Council. I ask myself – whether it is the United Kingdom, France, Germany or any other country – do we have more influence in the world speaking as 25, speaking with one voice? Or do we have more influence if we are able to put our own opinions forward and speak on behalf of our own people? I know the answer, but I suspect that most people in this House do not."@en⁴
lpv:spokenAs	member; INTA (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)²² substitute; PECH (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)²² unknown; UK Independence Party (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)²² member; Conference of Presidents (2004-07-20--2006-12-12)²² chair; IND/DEM (2004-12-06--2008-10-21)²²
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, this debate gets to the very heart of what the European Union is all about. In the United Kingdom – and I am sure in many other countries – the argument that was used when we first joined and continues to be used is that we are in the EU because we have greater influence in the world if we speak together with one voice. Well, I look at the WTO; I look at trade talks, where already no individual state may speak on her own behalf. What do I see? I see a Hong Kong summit that failed in December, despite the generous offer made by the Americans, and I see a situation where certainly the globe’s third largest trading nation could have done a rather better job for herself. This proposal for a single European seat is certainly not going to suit Britain, Denmark, or Sweden. We are not even in the euro. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, 1976 – when we went cap in hand to the IMF – is a dim and distant memory. A single IMF seat is not about economic logic; it is purely about politics. It is purely about turning the European Union into an international superstate. As we heard in one or two of the previous speeches, it is about standing up and forming a bloc to oppose America. The same logic is being applied elsewhere when it comes to the United Nations Security Council. I ask myself – whether it is the United Kingdom, France, Germany or any other country – do we have more influence in the world speaking as 25, speaking with one voice? Or do we have more influence if we are able to put our own opinions forward and speak on behalf of our own people? I know the answer, but I suspect that most people in this House do not."@cs¹ "Hr. formand, denne debat vedrører selve kernen i den europæiske idé. I Det Forenede Kongerige - og helt sikkert også i mange andre lande - var argumentet for optagelse i EU, et argument, som stadig fremføres, at vi er medlem af EU, fordi vi har større global indflydelse, hvis vi taler med én stemme. Meget vel, men når jeg nu ser på WTO, når jeg ser på handelsforhandlingerne, hvor ingen individuel stat må tale på egne vegne, hvad ser jeg så? Jeg ser et topmøde i Hongkong, der strandede i december på trods af amerikanernes generøse tilbud, og jeg ser en situation, hvor verdens tredjestørste handelsnation helt sikkert kunne have varetaget egne interesser langt bedre. Dette forslag om ét enkelt europæisk sæde vil helt sikker ikke falde i god jord hos briterne, danskerne eller svenskerne. Vi er ikke engang med i eurosystemet. Hvad angår Det Forenede Kongerige, er året 1976, hvor vi gik tiggergang til IMF, et svagt og fjernt minde. Et enkelt sæde i IMF er ikke et spørgsmål om økonomisk logik, men udelukkende et politisk spørgsmål. Det handler udelukkende om at gøre EU til en international superstat. Som det er blevet fremført i en eller to af de tidligere taler, handler det om at klare sig og danne en blok, der kan yde USA modspil. Den samme logik anvendes andre steder i FN's Sikkerhedsråd. Jeg spørger mig selv, om vi har større global indflydelse, når vi taler på 25 landes vegne med én stemme, hvad enten der er tale om Det Forenede Kongerige, Frankrig, Tyskland eller ethvert andet land? Eller har vi større indflydelse, hvis vi kan fremføre vores egne synspunkter og tale på vegne af vores egen befolkning? Jeg kender svaret, men jeg tror, at de fleste parlamentsmedlemmer ikke kender dette."@da² "Herr Präsident! Diese Aussprache trifft genau den Kern dessen, worin der Sinn der Europäischen Union überhaupt besteht. Im Vereinigten Königreich – und sicher in vielen anderen Ländern auch – galt bei unserem Beitritt und auch heute das Argument, dass wir in der EU sind, weil wir einen größeren Einfluss in der Welt haben, wenn wir mit einer Stimme sprechen. Nun schaue ich mir die Welthandelsorganisation an, ich betrachte mir die Handelsgespräche, wo schon kein einziger Staat mehr in seinem eigenen Namen sprechen kann. Und was sehe ich? Ich sehe einen Hongkong-Gipfel, der im Dezember trotz des großzügigen Angebots der Amerikaner scheiterte, und ich sehe eine Situation, in der die drittgrößte Handelsnation der Welt mit Sicherheit für sich allein mehr erreicht hätte. Dieser Vorschlag für einen einheitlichen europäischen Sitz eignet sich ganz gewiss nicht für Großbritannien, Dänemark oder Schweden. Wir haben ja nicht einmal den Euro. Was das Vereinigte Königreich betrifft, liegt das Jahr 1976 – als wir kleinlaut dem IWF beitraten – in ziemlich dunkler und ferner Erinnerung. Ein gemeinsamer IWF-Sitz hat nichts mit wirtschaftlicher Logik zu tun; es geht hier ausschließlich um Politik. Es geht nur darum, die Europäische Union in einen internationalen Superstaat zu verwandeln. Wie wir in einem oder zwei vorangegangenen Redebeiträgen hörten, handelt es sich darum, einen Block zu bilden und sich gegen Amerika durchzusetzen. Dieselbe Logik wird auch sonst angewandt, wenn es um den Sicherheitsrat der Vereinten Nationen geht. Ich frage mich – sei es nun das Vereinigte Königreich, Frankreich, Deutschland oder ein anderes Land: Haben wir, wenn wir als 25, wenn wir mit einer Stimme sprechen, mehr Einfluss in der Welt? Oder haben wir mehr Einfluss, wenn wir unsere eigenen Meinungen vertreten können und im Namen unserer eigenen Bevölkerung sprechen? Ich kenne die Antwort, fürchte aber, die meisten in diesem Hohen Haus kennen sie nicht."@de⁹ "Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η συζήτηση αυτή αγγίζει τον πυρήνα του τι είναι ακριβώς η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Στο Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο –και είμαι σίγουρος σε πολλές άλλες χώρες– το επιχείρημα που χρησιμοποιήθηκε όταν ενταχθήκαμε αρχικά και που συνεχίζει να χρησιμοποιείται είναι ότι είμαστε στην ΕΕ γιατί ασκούμε μεγαλύτερη επιρροή στον κόσμο αν μιλάμε όλοι μαζί με μία φωνή. Παρατηρώ, λοιπόν, τον ΠΟΕ· παρατηρώ τις εμπορικές συνομιλίες, όπου ήδη κανένα μεμονωμένο κράτος δεν μπορεί να μιλήσει για δικό του λογαριασμό. Τι βλέπω; Βλέπω μια σύνοδο κορυφής στο Χονγκ Κονγκ τον Δεκέμβριο που απέτυχε, παρά τη γενναιόδωρη προσφορά των Αμερικανών, και βλέπω μια κατάσταση όπου σίγουρα το τρίτο μεγαλύτερο εμπορικό έθνος στον κόσμο θα μπορούσε να τα καταφέρει αρκετά καλύτερα για λογαριασμό του. Αυτή η πρόταση για μια ενιαία ευρωπαϊκή έδρα σίγουρα δεν θα εξυπηρετήσει τη Βρετανία, τη Δανία ή τη Σουηδία. Δεν συμμετέχουμε ούτε καν στο ευρώ. Όσον αφορά το Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο, το 1976 –όταν πήγαμε ταπεινά στο ΔΝΤ– αποτελεί θολή και μακρινή ανάμνηση. Μια ενιαία έδρα στο ΔΝΤ δεν αποτελεί οικονομική λογική· πρόκειται καθαρά για πολιτική. Πρόκειται καθαρά για τη μετατροπή της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης σε ένα διεθνές υπερκράτος. Όπως ακούσαμε σε μία ή δύο από τις προηγούμενες ομιλίες, το θέμα είναι να ορθώσουμε το ανάστημά μας και να συνασπιστούμε εναντίον της Αμερικής. Η ίδια λογική εφαρμόζεται και αλλού όσον αφορά το Συμβούλιο Ασφαλείας των Ηνωμένων Εθνών. Διερωτώμαι το εξής, είτε πρόκειται για το Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο είτε για τη Γαλλία, τη Γερμανία ή οποιαδήποτε άλλη χώρα: ασκούμε περισσότερη επιρροή στον κόσμο μιλώντας ως 25, μιλώντας με μία φωνή; Ή ασκούμε περισσότερη επιρροή αν μπορούμε να προβάλλουμε τις δικές μας απόψεις και να μιλάμε για λογαριασμό του δικού μας λαού; Εγώ γνωρίζω την απάντηση, αλλά υποψιάζομαι ότι οι περισσότεροι στο Σώμα την αγνοούν."@el¹⁰ ". Señor Presidente, este debate entra de lleno en la cuestión de lo que es la Unión Europea. En el Reino Unido, y estoy seguro de que también en muchos otros países, el argumento que se utilizó cuando nos unimos por primera vez y se sigue utilizando es que estamos en la UE porque tenemos más influencia en el mundo si hablamos con una única voz. Bien, pues veamos que ocurre en la OMC; observemos las conversaciones comerciales, donde ya ningún Estado puede hablar en nombre propio. ¿Qué vemos? Vemos una cumbre de Hong Kong que fracasó en diciembre, a pesar de la generosa oferta realizada por los estadounidenses, y veo una situación donde ciertamente la tercera nación comercial más grande del planeta podría haber hecho un mejor trabajo por sí sola. Esta propuesta de representación única europea seguro que no va a gustar a Gran Bretaña, Dinamarca o Suecia. Ni siquiera estamos en el euro. En lo que se refiere al Reino Unido, el ańo 1976, cuando nos rebajamos ante el FMI, forma parte de un pasado remoto. Tener una representación única en el FMI no sería lógico económicamente hablando; es pura política. Se trata simplemente de convertir la Unión Europea en un superestado internacional. Como hemos oído en una o dos intervenciones anteriores, se trata de ponerse en pie y formar un bloque para oponerse a América. La misma lógica se aplica en todas partes cuando se trata del Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas. Y yo me pregunto –ya se trate del Reino Unido, de Francia, Alemania o cualquier otro país– si tenemos más influencia en el mundo hablando como 25, o hablando con una única voz. ¿O tenemos más influencia si podemos plantear nuestras propias opiniones y hablar en nombre de nuestros propios ciudadanos? Yo sé la respuesta, pero sospecho que la mayoría de esta Cámara no."@es²⁰ "Mr President, this debate gets to the very heart of what the European Union is all about. In the United Kingdom – and I am sure in many other countries – the argument that was used when we first joined and continues to be used is that we are in the EU because we have greater influence in the world if we speak together with one voice. Well, I look at the WTO; I look at trade talks, where already no individual state may speak on her own behalf. What do I see? I see a Hong Kong summit that failed in December, despite the generous offer made by the Americans, and I see a situation where certainly the globe’s third largest trading nation could have done a rather better job for herself. This proposal for a single European seat is certainly not going to suit Britain, Denmark, or Sweden. We are not even in the euro. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, 1976 – when we went cap in hand to the IMF – is a dim and distant memory. A single IMF seat is not about economic logic; it is purely about politics. It is purely about turning the European Union into an international superstate. As we heard in one or two of the previous speeches, it is about standing up and forming a bloc to oppose America. The same logic is being applied elsewhere when it comes to the United Nations Security Council. I ask myself – whether it is the United Kingdom, France, Germany or any other country – do we have more influence in the world speaking as 25, speaking with one voice? Or do we have more influence if we are able to put our own opinions forward and speak on behalf of our own people? I know the answer, but I suspect that most people in this House do not."@et⁵ ". Arvoisa puhemies, tässä keskustelussa käsitellään sitä, mistä Euroopan unionissa on pohjimmiltaan kysymys. Yhdistyneessä kuningaskunnassa – ja varmasti monissa muissakin maissa – Euroopan unioniin liittymistä ja siihen kuulumista perustellaan edelleenkin sillä, että meillä on enemmän vaikutusvaltaa maailmassa, jos puhumme yhdellä äänellä. Kun tarkastelen WTO:ta ja kauppaneuvotteluja, joissa jo nyt yksittäiset maat eivät pysty puhumaan omasta puolestaan, mitä näen? Näen Hong Kongin huippukokouksen, joka epäonnistui joulukuussa yhdysvaltalaisten anteliaasta tarjouksesta huolimatta. Näen tilanteen, jossa maailman kolmanneksi suurin kauppamahti olisi taatusti pystynyt tekemään itsensä kannalta paljon parempaa työtä. Ehdotus Euroopan unionin yhteisestä edustuksesta ei varmastikaan sovi Yhdistyneelle kuningaskunnalle, Tanskalle eikä Ruotsille. Emme kuulu edes euroalueeseen. Vuosi 1976, kun Yhdistynyt kuningaskunta joutui menemään hattu kourassa IMF:n puheille, on enää kaukainen muisto. Yhteinen edustus IMF:ssä ei ole talouden kannalta looginen ratkaisu – se on puhtaasti poliittinen kysymys. On kyse yksinomaan siitä, että Euroopan unionista pyritään tekemään kansainvälinen supervaltio. Kuten kuulimme parissa edellisessä puheenvuorossa, kyse on siitä, että pidämme puolemme ja asetumme yhtenäisenä ryhmänä vastustamaan Yhdysvaltoja. Samaa logiikkaa sovelletaan muuallakin, esimerkiksi Yhdistyneiden Kansakuntien turvallisuusneuvostossa. Pohdin itsekseni – olipa kyseessä Yhdistynyt kuningaskunta, Ranska, Saksa tai jokin muu maa – onko meillä enemmän valtaa maailmassa, jos kaikilla 25:llä on yksi yhtenäinen ääni? Vai onko meillä enemmän valtaa, jos pystymme esittämään omat näkemyksemme ja puhumaan oman kansamme puolesta? Tiedän vastauksen, mutta epäilen, että suurin osa täällä parlamentissa ei tiedä."@fi⁷ ". Monsieur le Président, ce débat touche au fondement même de l’Union européenne. Au Royaume-Uni - et je suis sûr que dans beaucoup d’autres pays aussi -, l’argument avancé au moment de notre adhésion à l’UE, et qui continue d’être utilisé, est que nous sommes dans l’UE parce que nous avons une plus grande influence dans le monde si nous parlons d’une seule voix. Je regarde l’OMC; je regarde ces négociations commerciales, où aucun État ne peut parler en son propre nom. Qu’est-ce que je vois? Je vois un sommet à Hong Kong qui a échoué en décembre dernier, malgré l’offre généreuse des Américains, et je vois une situation où la troisième plus grande nation commerciale au monde aurait certainement pu faire mieux pour elle-même. Cette proposition de siège européen unique ne plaira certainement pas à la Grande-Bretagne, au Danemark ou à la Suède. Nous ne sommes même pas dans la zone euro. En ce qui concerne le Royaume-Uni, l’année 1976 - où nous sommes allés quémander auprès du FMI - est un souvenir vague et lointain. Un siège unique au FMI n’est pas une question de logique économique, mais est purement politique. Il s’agit purement et simplement de transformer l’Union européenne en super-État international. Ainsi que nous l’avons entendu dans une ou deux des précédentes interventions, l’objectif est de se dresser et de former un bloc qui s’oppose à l’Amérique. Cette même logique est appliquée dans le cas du Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies. Je voudrais poser la question suivante - que ce soit du point de vue du Royaume-Uni, de la France, de l’Allemagne ou de tout autre pays - avons-nous plus d’influence dans le monde en parlant au nom de 25, en parlant d’une seule voix? Ou avons-nous plus d’influence si nous sommes capables de mettre nos propres opinions en avant et de parler au nom de nos propres citoyens? Je connais la réponse, mais je soupçonne la plupart des députés de ce Parlement de ne pas la connaître."@fr⁸ "Mr President, this debate gets to the very heart of what the European Union is all about. In the United Kingdom – and I am sure in many other countries – the argument that was used when we first joined and continues to be used is that we are in the EU because we have greater influence in the world if we speak together with one voice. Well, I look at the WTO; I look at trade talks, where already no individual state may speak on her own behalf. What do I see? I see a Hong Kong summit that failed in December, despite the generous offer made by the Americans, and I see a situation where certainly the globe’s third largest trading nation could have done a rather better job for herself. This proposal for a single European seat is certainly not going to suit Britain, Denmark, or Sweden. We are not even in the euro. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, 1976 – when we went cap in hand to the IMF – is a dim and distant memory. A single IMF seat is not about economic logic; it is purely about politics. It is purely about turning the European Union into an international superstate. As we heard in one or two of the previous speeches, it is about standing up and forming a bloc to oppose America. The same logic is being applied elsewhere when it comes to the United Nations Security Council. I ask myself – whether it is the United Kingdom, France, Germany or any other country – do we have more influence in the world speaking as 25, speaking with one voice? Or do we have more influence if we are able to put our own opinions forward and speak on behalf of our own people? I know the answer, but I suspect that most people in this House do not."@hu¹¹ ". Signor Presidente, questo dibattito va dritto al cuore della funzione dell’Unione europea. Nel Regno Unito, e sicuramente in molti altri paesi, l’argomentazione cui si ricorreva all’inizio della nostra adesione e cui si continua ricorrere è che facciamo parte dell’UE per poter esercitare una maggiore influenza nel mondo parlando con una voce sola. Bene, guardo all’OMC, guardo ai negoziati commerciali in cui ormai nessuno Stato può parlare singolarmente a proprio nome. Cosa vedo? Vedo un Vertice di Hong Kong fallito a dicembre, nonostante la generosa offerta avanzata dagli americani, e vedo una situazione in cui sicuramente la terza nazione più importante del globo in ambito commerciale avrebbe potuto ottenere migliori risultati da sola. Questa proposta di un seggio unico per l’Europa certamente non piacerà alla Regno Unito, alla Danimarca o alla Svezia. Noi non abbiamo nemmeno aderito all’euro. Per quanto riguarda il Regno Unito, il 1976, anno in cui ci presentammo all’FMI umili e sottomessi, è un vago e confuso ricordo. Un unico seggio in seno all’FMI non è una questione di logica economica, ma di natura puramente politica. Si tratta semplicemente di trasformare l’Unione europea in un superstato internazionale. Come abbiamo sentito in uno o due dei precedenti interventi, si tratta di formare un blocco da opporre all’America. Si sta applicando la stessa logica anche altrove a proposito del Consiglio di sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite. Mi chiedo, considerando ad esempio il Regno Unito, la Francia, la Germania o qualunque altro paese, esercitiamo una maggiore influenza nel mondo in 25, parlando con una voce sola? Oppure la nostra influenza è maggiore se siamo in grado di avanzare le nostre opinioni e di parlare a nome del nostro popolo? Io la risposta la conosco, ma sospetto che la maggioranza dei deputati di questa Assemblea no."@it¹² "Mr President, this debate gets to the very heart of what the European Union is all about. In the United Kingdom – and I am sure in many other countries – the argument that was used when we first joined and continues to be used is that we are in the EU because we have greater influence in the world if we speak together with one voice. Well, I look at the WTO; I look at trade talks, where already no individual state may speak on her own behalf. What do I see? I see a Hong Kong summit that failed in December, despite the generous offer made by the Americans, and I see a situation where certainly the globe’s third largest trading nation could have done a rather better job for herself. This proposal for a single European seat is certainly not going to suit Britain, Denmark, or Sweden. We are not even in the euro. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, 1976 – when we went cap in hand to the IMF – is a dim and distant memory. A single IMF seat is not about economic logic; it is purely about politics. It is purely about turning the European Union into an international superstate. As we heard in one or two of the previous speeches, it is about standing up and forming a bloc to oppose America. The same logic is being applied elsewhere when it comes to the United Nations Security Council. I ask myself – whether it is the United Kingdom, France, Germany or any other country – do we have more influence in the world speaking as 25, speaking with one voice? Or do we have more influence if we are able to put our own opinions forward and speak on behalf of our own people? I know the answer, but I suspect that most people in this House do not."@lt¹⁴ "Mr President, this debate gets to the very heart of what the European Union is all about. In the United Kingdom – and I am sure in many other countries – the argument that was used when we first joined and continues to be used is that we are in the EU because we have greater influence in the world if we speak together with one voice. Well, I look at the WTO; I look at trade talks, where already no individual state may speak on her own behalf. What do I see? I see a Hong Kong summit that failed in December, despite the generous offer made by the Americans, and I see a situation where certainly the globe’s third largest trading nation could have done a rather better job for herself. This proposal for a single European seat is certainly not going to suit Britain, Denmark, or Sweden. We are not even in the euro. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, 1976 – when we went cap in hand to the IMF – is a dim and distant memory. A single IMF seat is not about economic logic; it is purely about politics. It is purely about turning the European Union into an international superstate. As we heard in one or two of the previous speeches, it is about standing up and forming a bloc to oppose America. The same logic is being applied elsewhere when it comes to the United Nations Security Council. I ask myself – whether it is the United Kingdom, France, Germany or any other country – do we have more influence in the world speaking as 25, speaking with one voice? Or do we have more influence if we are able to put our own opinions forward and speak on behalf of our own people? I know the answer, but I suspect that most people in this House do not."@lv¹³ "Mr President, this debate gets to the very heart of what the European Union is all about. In the United Kingdom – and I am sure in many other countries – the argument that was used when we first joined and continues to be used is that we are in the EU because we have greater influence in the world if we speak together with one voice. Well, I look at the WTO; I look at trade talks, where already no individual state may speak on her own behalf. What do I see? I see a Hong Kong summit that failed in December, despite the generous offer made by the Americans, and I see a situation where certainly the globe’s third largest trading nation could have done a rather better job for herself. This proposal for a single European seat is certainly not going to suit Britain, Denmark, or Sweden. We are not even in the euro. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, 1976 – when we went cap in hand to the IMF – is a dim and distant memory. A single IMF seat is not about economic logic; it is purely about politics. It is purely about turning the European Union into an international superstate. As we heard in one or two of the previous speeches, it is about standing up and forming a bloc to oppose America. The same logic is being applied elsewhere when it comes to the United Nations Security Council. I ask myself – whether it is the United Kingdom, France, Germany or any other country – do we have more influence in the world speaking as 25, speaking with one voice? Or do we have more influence if we are able to put our own opinions forward and speak on behalf of our own people? I know the answer, but I suspect that most people in this House do not."@mt¹⁵ "Mijnheer de Voorzitter, dit debat raakt aan de kern van de Europese Unie. Als argument voor toetreding tot de EU werd ooit in het Verenigd Koninkrijk - en volgens mij ook in veel andere landen - gezegd dat wij een veel grotere invloed in de wereld uit zouden kunnen uitoefenen als wij met één stem zouden spreken. Dat argument wordt overigens nog steeds gebruikt. Dat gezegd hebbende, kijk ik naar de WTO en naar de handelsbesprekingen, waar geen enkel afzonderlijk land nog een eigen stem heeft. Wat zie ik dan? Ik zie dan dat de Top in december in Hongkong is mislukt, ondanks het genereuze aanbod van de Amerikanen. Ik zie een situatie waarin de op twee na grootste handelsnatie ter wereld zichzelf ongetwijfeld een betere dienst had kunnen bewijzen. Het voorstel voor één enkele Europese zetel zal Engeland, Denemarken en Zweden zeker niet als muziek in de oren klinken. Wij maken niet eens deel uit van de eurozone. Wat het Verenigd Koninkrijk betreft, is 1976 - het jaar dat wij deemoedig tot het IMF toetraden - nog slechts een vage herinnering. Het streven naar één enkele IMF-zetel heeft niets te maken met economische uitgangspunten; het is alleen maar een politiek spel. Het is uitsluitend de bedoeling om de Europese Unie tot een internationale superstaat te laten uitgroeien. Zoals wij ook al in een paar andere betogen hebben kunnen horen, is het een kwestie van tegengas geven aan Amerika en van het vormen van een blok tegen dat land. Datzelfde uitgangspunt wordt ook gehanteerd als het om de Veiligheidsraad van de Verenigde Naties gaat. Of het nu om het Verenigd Koninkrijk, Frankrijk, Duitsland of welk land dan ook gaat, ik vraag mij af of wij wel meer invloed in de wereld kunnen uitoefenen als de 25 lidstaten met één stem spreken. Hebben wij niet meer invloed als wij in staat zijn om onze eigen standpunten duidelijk uit te dragen en als wij uit naam van onze eigen burgers spreken? Ikzelf weet het antwoord op deze vraag, maar ik vermoed dat de meeste afgevaardigden in dit Parlement het niet weten."@nl³ "Mr President, this debate gets to the very heart of what the European Union is all about. In the United Kingdom – and I am sure in many other countries – the argument that was used when we first joined and continues to be used is that we are in the EU because we have greater influence in the world if we speak together with one voice. Well, I look at the WTO; I look at trade talks, where already no individual state may speak on her own behalf. What do I see? I see a Hong Kong summit that failed in December, despite the generous offer made by the Americans, and I see a situation where certainly the globe’s third largest trading nation could have done a rather better job for herself. This proposal for a single European seat is certainly not going to suit Britain, Denmark, or Sweden. We are not even in the euro. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, 1976 – when we went cap in hand to the IMF – is a dim and distant memory. A single IMF seat is not about economic logic; it is purely about politics. It is purely about turning the European Union into an international superstate. As we heard in one or two of the previous speeches, it is about standing up and forming a bloc to oppose America. The same logic is being applied elsewhere when it comes to the United Nations Security Council. I ask myself – whether it is the United Kingdom, France, Germany or any other country – do we have more influence in the world speaking as 25, speaking with one voice? Or do we have more influence if we are able to put our own opinions forward and speak on behalf of our own people? I know the answer, but I suspect that most people in this House do not."@pl¹⁶ "Senhor Presidente, este debate vai direito ao âmago de tudo aquilo que representa a União Europeia. No Reino Unido – e estou certo de que em muitos outros países –, o argumento que era – e continua a ser – usado aquando da nossa adesão era que estamos na UE porque temos mais influência no mundo se falarmos juntos, em uníssono. Pois bem, observo a OMC; observo as conferências sobre o comércio, onde já nenhum Estado individual pode falar em seu próprio nome. E que vejo? Vejo uma Cimeira de Hong-Kong que foi um fracasso em Dezembro, apesar da generosa oferta dos Americanos, e vejo uma situação em que aquela que indubitavelmente é a terceira maior nação comercial do globo podia ter feito algo de muito melhor por si própria. Esta proposta de uma representação europeia única não vai, certamente, agradar à Grã-Bretanha, nem à Dinamarca, nem à Suécia. Nem sequer estamos no euro. No que diz respeito ao Reino Unido, 1976 – quando fomos de chapéu na mão ao FMI – é uma vaga e distante lembrança. Uma representação única no MFI não é uma questão de lógica económica, mas sim puramente uma questão política. É pura e simplesmente uma questão de transformar a União Europeia em um super-Estado internacional. Como nos foi dado escutar em uma ou duas das intervenções anteriores, é uma questão de nos erguermos e constituirmos um bloco para opor à América. A mesma lógica é aplicada noutro lugar, quando se trata do Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas. Pergunto-me – quer se trate do Reino Unido, da França, da Alemanha ou de qualquer outro país – se temos mais influência falando como 25 ou falando em uníssono. Ou será que temos mais influência se tivermos capacidade para fazermos avançar as nossas opiniões ou falando em nome do nosso próprio povo? Sei a resposta, mas desconfio que, nesta Assembleia, a maior parte das pessoas não sabe."@pt¹⁷ "Mr President, this debate gets to the very heart of what the European Union is all about. In the United Kingdom – and I am sure in many other countries – the argument that was used when we first joined and continues to be used is that we are in the EU because we have greater influence in the world if we speak together with one voice. Well, I look at the WTO; I look at trade talks, where already no individual state may speak on her own behalf. What do I see? I see a Hong Kong summit that failed in December, despite the generous offer made by the Americans, and I see a situation where certainly the globe’s third largest trading nation could have done a rather better job for herself. This proposal for a single European seat is certainly not going to suit Britain, Denmark, or Sweden. We are not even in the euro. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, 1976 – when we went cap in hand to the IMF – is a dim and distant memory. A single IMF seat is not about economic logic; it is purely about politics. It is purely about turning the European Union into an international superstate. As we heard in one or two of the previous speeches, it is about standing up and forming a bloc to oppose America. The same logic is being applied elsewhere when it comes to the United Nations Security Council. I ask myself – whether it is the United Kingdom, France, Germany or any other country – do we have more influence in the world speaking as 25, speaking with one voice? Or do we have more influence if we are able to put our own opinions forward and speak on behalf of our own people? I know the answer, but I suspect that most people in this House do not."@sk¹⁸ "Mr President, this debate gets to the very heart of what the European Union is all about. In the United Kingdom – and I am sure in many other countries – the argument that was used when we first joined and continues to be used is that we are in the EU because we have greater influence in the world if we speak together with one voice. Well, I look at the WTO; I look at trade talks, where already no individual state may speak on her own behalf. What do I see? I see a Hong Kong summit that failed in December, despite the generous offer made by the Americans, and I see a situation where certainly the globe’s third largest trading nation could have done a rather better job for herself. This proposal for a single European seat is certainly not going to suit Britain, Denmark, or Sweden. We are not even in the euro. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, 1976 – when we went cap in hand to the IMF – is a dim and distant memory. A single IMF seat is not about economic logic; it is purely about politics. It is purely about turning the European Union into an international superstate. As we heard in one or two of the previous speeches, it is about standing up and forming a bloc to oppose America. The same logic is being applied elsewhere when it comes to the United Nations Security Council. I ask myself – whether it is the United Kingdom, France, Germany or any other country – do we have more influence in the world speaking as 25, speaking with one voice? Or do we have more influence if we are able to put our own opinions forward and speak on behalf of our own people? I know the answer, but I suspect that most people in this House do not."@sl¹⁹ ". Herr talman! Denna debatt rör själva kärnan i vad Europeiska unionen står för. I Förenade kungariket – och helt säkert i många andra länder – var det argument som användes när vi först anslöt oss, och som fortsätter att användas, att vi är med i EU därför att vi får större inflytande i världen om vi agerar samfällt. Nåväl, om man ser till WTO, om man ser till handelsförhandlingarna, där det redan är så att ingen enskild stat kan tala för sig själv, vad är resultatet? Ett toppmöte i Hongkong som misslyckades i december trots ett generöst erbjudande från amerikanerna, och en situation där världens tredje största handelsnation säkerligen kunde ha gjort ett bättre jobb på egen hand. Förslaget om en gemensam europeisk representation kommer med all säkerhet inte att tilltala Förenade kungariket, Danmark eller Sverige. Vi är inte ens med i EMU. För Förenade kungarikets del är 1976 – då vi kom till IMF med mössan i handen – ett svagt och avlägset minne. En gemensam representation i IMF handlar inte om ekonomisk logik, det handlar enbart om politik. Det handlar enbart om att göra EU till en internationell superstat. Som vi hörde i några av de föregående inläggen handlar det om att stå upp och bilda en sammanslutning mot USA. Samma logik tillämpas på andra håll när det gäller FN:s säkerhetsråd. Frågan är om vi – vare sig det är Förenade kungariket, Frankrike, Tyskland eller något annat land – får större inflytande i världen om 25 länder uttalar sig unisont? Eller får vi större inflytande om vi kan föra fram våra egna åsikter och tala för våra egna folk? Jag vet svaret, men jag misstänker att de flesta i kammaren inte gör det."@sv²¹
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(ΕΝ)"¹⁰ "Nigel Farage,"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,10,13,10,4} "on behalf of the IND/DEM Group"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4} "εξ ονόματος της Ομάδας IND/DEM"¹⁰