Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-06-08-Speech-3-015"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050608.3.3-015"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I must confess that I am at a loss, and I do not think that I am the only one. Rarely have I found a speech as difficult as the one that I have to give this morning, because, as the spokesman for a group of over 200 Members, I have to try to draw together the diverse sentiments that the current situation has called forth in them. It is not easy, because it has been interpreted in many different ways. I should therefore like to add a few comments to what has already been said.
Finally, I should like to say a few words about enlargement. Anyone who withdraws the prospect of enlargement from those states that are hoping for it is playing with fire!
Enlargement must remain a possibility. That is the unanimous opinion of our group. But promising enlargement before the foundations for that enlargement have been laid – the constitution was to be those foundations – is just as negligent. We cannot demand reforms and processes of transformation from other countries when we ourselves are not capable of putting our own house in order.
That is why this Union has to do something. It has to reform. That is why giving Europe a constitution remains our objective. Because only with that constitution can European enlargement – and with it peace – become a reality.
I should like to underline one point: no country will allow another country to dictate how it implements its national law, and that is as it should be. We are a union of sovereign states. One country might say that it is going to suspend the ratification process, while another might say that it wants to ratify by parliamentary procedure or by holding a referendum. This is something that we in this House will have to take on board. Each country chooses how it wishes to proceed and each country is also entitled to do this as it sees fit. There is no golden-goal rule in the European Union, whereby someone scores a goal and the game is over. It cannot work like that. The 77% of Spaniards who said ‘yes’ to this constitution have the same value as the 55% of French people who said ‘no’ to it. That is why the process goes on.
However, when interpreting the results, all of us – and I specifically include myself here – also need to ask some self-critical questions. What we have seen in the referenda is actually nothing new. It is just that for a very long time we have turned a blind eye to these developments. Every European election – in 2004, 1999, 1994, and even in 1989 – has showed similar tendencies: namely that increasing numbers of European citizens are turning away from the European project. None of us wanted to take this on board. This comment is directed particularly at me, for nor did I.
This time it has been made abundantly clear that there is a gulf between the governments, the European institutions and the public. Why is there this gulf? In the fifties, sixties and seventies, at the time of Jean Monnet or Helmut Kohl, of De Gaspari and Mitterrand, people did not read the treaties either. The citizens of Europe did not read the Treaty on the European Coal and Steel Community, but they had a trust in Europe, a basic confidence, a feeling. Europe promised peace and democracy, and peace and democracy were created for all to see. In other words, the claims matched up to reality. This created trust in the governments and in the European institutions.
This promise of democracy and peace was complemented by a promise of prosperity, jobs and social security. The claim – more jobs, more social security, more protection – is not matched by visible results, because in many countries there are fewer jobs and less security. The public feel this gulf. And we are not making it any narrower, because we do not see the European Union sufficiently as an opportunity and because we do not present it as an opportunity either. And there is a reason for this.
Alongside all this self-criticism that I am directing at us – at myself, this House and the Commission – there is one factor that cannot be overlooked and that should perhaps finally be discussed in the Council of 16 and 17 June. We all know that what we do in Brussels does not produce a direct relationship between ourselves and the citizens, but an indirect one. In between there are always the national governments. Their evil deeds of the past have now come back with a vengeance to haunt the governments of France and the Netherlands. You cannot claim every success for yourself as a national government and lay the blame for every failure at Brussels’ door, and then expect people to rejoice over Brussels. It does not work!
I therefore say very clearly: we in the European Parliament have a job to do. I agree that we need to talk more about subsidiarity, about cutting red tape, about improving effectiveness and increasing transparency. But the governments of the European Union must also assume their share of the responsibility, and that means saying what they are doing and then doing what they are saying. It is as simple as that!"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples