Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-04-Speech-3-272"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020904.8.3-272"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I find that this report on European citizenship is somewhat schizophrenic. On the one hand, it is concerned about the steadily declining turnout for European elections, which reflects the citizens’ lack of interest and may, if it continues, and I quote, 'delegitimise the elections to the European Parliament'. It also states, similarly, that a European citizenship cannot be created solely from above and that a minimum level of citizen participation is required. All this is perfectly true.
On the other hand, however, if we look for the cause of this lack of interest, we find them in the proposals of the Coelho report itself. For example, the Opinion of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs annexed to the report asks yet again for transnational lists for European elections to be established, which would be the best way to increase the citizens’ sense of distance from the Union. The report itself contains the traditional request to make the Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding, which would have the distinctive feature of removing the definition of a good number of citizens’ rights from national democracies. In relation to this, I would point out that the Charter neatly sidesteps national citizenships and does not even mention the fundamental right of citizens to express themselves democratically within their own nation.
The Coelho report also calls, in paragraph 3, for immigrants from third countries to be granted rights which are as near as possible to those enjoyed by EU citizens. In other words, European citizenship would be granted in practice, if not in principle, to immigrants who are not nationals of a Member State. Could this manner of proposal make our citizens love Europe? I do not need a public answer from you now, ladies and gentlemen, but I would ask you to think it over.
To briefly summarise, all these proposals and a good many others that I could refer to tend to reduce or limit the rights of nations. Even now, however, the institutions of the Union do not seem to understand the basic fact that citizens are deeply attached to their nations and by attacking or by downgrading their nations they are hurting citizens and turning them away from Europe. In this way, even if our citizens are convinced, as we are, of the importance and need for European cooperation, it is the Union’s own attitude that turns them off Europe.
The Union must have a radical change of attitude if it wants to regain contact with its citizens. The Convention that is meeting to prepare the IGC 2004 will afford us the opportunity in the months to come. The proposals that result from it must give out a clear signal that Europe must be built on its nations and that it will respect their laws. In particular, it must be clear, not only that the European citizenship does not replace national citizenships, but also that it remains subordinate to them."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples