Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-12-Speech-3-137"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000412.4.3-137"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we should go back to basics and ask ourselves what makes the European Union different. Over the centuries many attempts were made by some countries to dominate others. Ideas may have varied according to the times and individual countries’ interests, but the system stayed the same, with power for some and subjugation for others. We suffered centuries of war and even destruction and ruin on several occasions. Many times we had to start over and it was the last time this happened that the European idea came into being. So what is different? The answer is everything. We have a system based on mutual freedom for everyone, instead of supremacy for some. We have a framework agreed between nations and not one imposed on the nations. We therefore have a permanent contract between free and sovereign states which are all equal. Instead of changing majorities, we have the rules of a stable contract in which we are all minorities. This is the secret of the unequalled peace and progress which we have enjoyed, based firstly on a common culture of human rights, democracy, the rule of law and free markets and, secondly, on strict mutual respect with no trampling over other countries. The instruments which we use are procedural rules, unanimity or at least broad convergence, and substantive rules, concrete harmonisation policies and the promotion of economic and social cohesion. The price is patience, which is a small price to pay for such great results!
We need to be patient with each other and in terms of time so that Europe can continue along the same lines. We particularly need to resist the age-old temptation of wanting to impose ourselves on others, to break this contract between equals, for this has never led to union. By cherishing the idea of union in Europe we are being realistic, not imposing a rose-tinted fantasy. It would be wrong to strip away the rules of the game which have brought us so much success to date.
In my opinion, the motion for a resolution is a dangerous anti-Europe deviation, which completely alters the balance. This would be a disaster for my own country, Portugal, as for other smaller or medium-sized Member States. For Europe in general it would mean a crisis or breakdown. We cannot have a Europe in which less rules over more, which gets annoyed but does not listen and which aims to replace a Treaty between states with a constitution imposed on the states. We want an open Europe, not one tied in a straitjacket.
Finally, I must mention the idea of transnational European parties. As a Conservative Christian Democrat, I stand as a witness against this. My party, the Popular Party or CDS-PP, founded the PPE. Some years ago we were expelled from the PPE because we advocated a referendum on Maastricht. It is now our former Austrian companions from the Christian Democratic Union who are in difficulty because of elections in their country. What a frightening idea of democracy! We need to be careful, for federalism is so dazzling that it destroys with its hands those concepts which it asserts with its own mouth. This is because it covets power and ignores partnership and we cannot go down this road."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples