Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-12-Speech-3-132"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000412.4.3-132"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, tomorrow I am going to vote for the Dimitrakopoulos/Leinen report. The Committee for Constitutional Affairs has done a good job and has taken a progressive, courageous position on certain areas of reform of the Treaties. However, if I were asked to give my opinion on the overall status of the situation in Europe, I would have to say that I am somewhat confused and concerned. There is no point in trying to deny anything. Certain facts which have become clear in the last few days, some of which have been the subject of furious political debate in recent weeks, show that, in actual fact, much of the confusion and fear that has been expressed and many of the objections raised are well-founded.
In connection with this, a few days ago
published a revealing article by Mr Schmidt and Mr Giscard d’Estaing, the founders of the European monetary serpent, which frankly and explicitly repeated an observation previously made by Jacques Delors, to the effect that if the institutions do not undergo thorough reform, the European Community will rapidly be reduced to a free trade area.
Personally, I find some of the decisions adopted extremely excessive, if not rash, such as, for example, the proposal to open the Community to Turkey – a country which I respect and which it is right to respect, despite its differences from the European Community in terms of history, culture and politics and the concept of the State as well, quite apart from the issue of human rights – and these decisions are evidence of an organisation which is becoming increasingly more economic than political.
There are two alternatives: either the founding countries of the Community change direction, or else, slowly but surely, we will be forced to abandon all hope. There is no longer even any question of the creation of a different State; it is history which must change course. The Europe which we Europeanists dream of is a Europe of States, and it should therefore be no cause for concern to anyone who, and rightly so, believes strongly in national identity. Nobody wants to eliminate the States: however, all these different national situations in the different States, which have reached the point where they are incapable of overcoming the challenges of the world today, must be adapted and tuned to something greater.
I should now like to touch on the vicious attacks on President Prodi, not only from the press but also within the political sphere. There is no point in denying anything in this case either. I am not passing judgement on President Prodi now, for it would not be appropriate to do so at this time, but I do feel that these attacks are evidence of strong criticism of a Commission line, a line which has been progressive and open. It has sometimes been a little on the optimistic side, but it certainly represents progress.
Madam President, the fact that I am addressing Commissioner Barnier in this Chamber, with whom I have often had the opportunity for discussion in smaller meetings, gives me a positive feeling about tomorrow’s debate, but my view of the medium- and long-term progress of European development is pessimistic. I feel that Parliament will be required to take courageous, decisive action in matters much more important than a resolution, if, as I fear, the agenda is not extended, and if, in the end, as the current state of affairs would suggest, an excess of caution results in a Conference which makes nothing more than cosmetic changes to the Treaties and avoids any substantial modifications."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples