Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-18-Speech-3-130"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030618.9.3-130"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I am pleased to be able to tell you that the British Conservatives will be voting against this proposal tomorrow.
We think it is wrong in principle to take people’s money through taxation in order to synthesise an artificial sense of European identity. Many of my constituents, and, I dare say, even some of the constituents of the honourable Members who will be voting for the resolution tomorrow, would be horrified to learn that their taxes were subsidising European political parties whose programmes they might fundamentally oppose.
Furthermore, we believe that the bill introduces a dangerous principle of political discrimination. It discriminates overtly against some parties on the basis of their beliefs and covertly against all parties which see themselves principally in national terms and are accordingly reluctant to form trans-European blocks. So much, perhaps, will not surprise you.
I accept that the British Conservative Party is in a minority in this Chamber in championing the primacy of national democracy. I know that most Members of this House believe that a working democracy at European Union level is feasible and desirable: that is a perfectly honourable position, but I would appeal to such Members to ask themselves whether these proposals are truly democratic. In a pure democracy there should be as few restrictions as possible on how people choose their representatives.
Having been elected, politicians should be free to associate in any combinations they wish. They should be able to express their opinions openly and they should be allowed to raise funds through any method that their voters will tolerate. Laying down legal criteria for recognition dilutes democracy and infantilises the voter. If a politician expresses noxious views, it should be up to his constituents to remove him, not the courts, let alone his political opponents. If he is thought to be financially dependent on some vested interest, then that too should be a matter for his voters, not the authorities. The bill before the House tonight traduces these principles. It goes so far as to introduce a mechanism where parties which are at odds with the political convictions of the majority may be disqualified, a measure surely more in keeping with the old Warsaw Pact than with the democratic Europe to which we are notionally devoted.
In a free political market place, good ideas will triumph, not because bad ones are suppressed, but because people are able to distinguish between truth and falsehood. If our constituents are not able to make that choice for themselves, their moral capacity is diminished and a measure of their freedom is lost.
Democracy is not just a slogan, a trite word to attach to any idea of which we happen to approve. It has a very specific meaning and it is incompatible with the measure before us tonight. True Europeans, honest democrats and sincere lovers of freedom should vote against it."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples