Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-09-21-Speech-4-023"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000921.1.4-023"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I understand that there are several debates taking place concurrently and that it is probably easier to speak when one is independent of any particular political group, but everything appears to be moving in favour of political dialogue and the clarification of what we are discussing here, as well as the objectives of the written declaration that has been presented.
Dialogue cannot serve to cover up violence and terror, nor can it mean surrender in the face of crime. Political dialogue is only possible when the bombs cease to go off, the guns are silent and democratic values have been accepted. We wholeheartedly reject the call for dialogue and the meekness that both lead to dictatorships and concentration camps. We are, however, in favour of responsible and democratic dialogue in order to achieve peaceful coexistence and to strengthen democracy, which is so essential to us.
Today is pointless already, after all that we have heard about the significance of ETA terrorism, its devastating effects on the population, its outright assault on the democratic values enshrined in the Spanish Constitution of 1978 and in the Statute of Guernica, that cost the countless efforts and sacrifices of the Basque and Spanish people as a whole to achieve.
We have heard from those who fought against the Franco dictatorship, who are present today and are to be commended, but there are others, now dead, who no longer have a voice and can no longer participate in political dialogue. This is why the issue must be clarified here today, and why I must respond to the various interpretations of what constitutes political dialogue. Quite clearly, over and above natural political differences political dialogue must exist, a political dialogue between people and organisations that respect and defend the values of democracy and freedom.
Political dialogue cannot be achieved when, with one hand, or at a given moment, people call for dialogue and with the other, they turn a pistol or a bomb on those with whom they are supposedly in talks.
No one can be invited to join in this dialogue. Political dialogue should take place between democratic parties, whether they be nationalist or not, with Convergència Democràtica de Catalunya, with Convergència i Unió, with the PNV, with Eusko Alkartasuna, with Izquíerda Unida, with the PSOE, with the governing Partido Popular, and within the institutions, transparently and clearly, on behalf of the people and answering to all Spanish citizens. We cannot, however enter into the kind of dialogue that the proponents of violence are calling for, as that kind of dialogue is not permissible in a democratic and open society.
We are aware that problems and any political, economic and social contradictions can be resolved through dialogue and through decisions taken by democratic institutions. However, we must not use dialogue as a universal rhetorical remedy that is also open to those who perpetrate and advocate violence and to those who bemoan the deaths as though they were traffic accidents when they are in fact cruel murders committed against children and defenceless people, as in the name of democracy, this is unacceptable. I think these people should remain silent and I hope they hear my message and adopt a more moral approach to the problem, as opposed to violence."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples