Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-03-Speech-2-023"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001003.2.2-023"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, judging by what I have heard recently, one could be forgiven for believing that nothing of any great importance happened on 28 September. It nevertheless seems to me that Denmark has just given us a lesson in democracy. The Danish people seized this opportunity to send us an unequivocal message, and we should be thankful for it.
In saying no, the Danes have shown that Europe cannot be built without, or against the wishes of, those for whom it is a day-to-day reality. They have shown that Europe is currently on the wrong track. Indeed, rather than being an inclusive Europe, it seems to be becoming a Europe for the few. Let us not, for all this, slip into caricature. Rejecting one type of European model does not make one anti-European. It would be a crass mistake to think that it did. It is essential, on the eve of the Biarritz Summit, for the European Heads of State and Government to fully grasp the message addressed to them. Beyond the Danish ‘no’ vote, it is a call for a genuine Europe of differences, based on respect for peoples and for their diversity. This is what constitutes the real wealth of Europe. This right to difference and to respect is what must underpin any debate on institutional affairs, particularly at Biarritz. This is vital if we are to stop Europe drifting off course as it is now, seeking an identity somewhere between harmonisation and standardisation, which Europeans, quite justifiably, find so difficult to accept.
Unfortunately, this would seem to be the path that the Intergovernmental Conference wants to follow, by focusing on the extension of qualified majority voting. The environment, for example, will not be protected more efficiently as a result of our wanting to impose a policy that ignores economic realities and peoples’ needs. Let us therefore take advantage of the current discussions within the IGC to redefine, at last, a system that has reached its limits. The current desire to extend qualified majority voting will not bring Europe closer to the citizens. On the contrary, it will leave those who do not accept the single mindset by the wayside. These internal tensions will not strengthen Europe’s hand in international negotiations. Just how many different speeds will there be in the Europe towards which you want to lead us? Here are just a few of the many avenues which could be explored.
We need, for example, to agree to and facilitate subsidiarity. Europe must limit its responsibilities to those that the States cannot effectively assume alone. The principle of the free movement of goods and persons should promote trade and exposure to other cultures and other ways of life, rather than standardising everything. We need to hand the initiative back to the political arena and restore the initiative to the people.
We must, in conclusion, listen to the people more closely, respect their opinions, and seek to understand why it is they are turning their backs on Europe as it is now. Then we will all be able to move forward together."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples