Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-06-08-Speech-3-020"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050608.3.3-020"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in order to be united politically by means of an economic and social project, and to revive development, Europe needs to have institutions that communicate with its citizens. The future depends on informed consent. The vote that took place in France and in the Netherlands does not mean a ‘no’ to Europe but the desire to stop going down the road where decisions are too often made at the top or without taking account of changing circumstances and new economic and social situations. It is precisely the employment crisis, caused by the social dumping carried out by a number of countries and the lengthy time taken by Europe in tackling the issue, that has created the insecurity and fear that prompted the ‘no’ vote on the Treaty. It was not so much a case of saying ‘no’ to the Treaty but to the poor information provided, which has also been acknowledged by the Commission in recent weeks.
When it was drawn up, the Treaty was the best compromise possible, but it was not sufficiently well suited to the challenges already in play. What the people of Europe are demanding is to have clear, applicable rules, which respect the principle of subsidiarity and which are able to provide solutions not only to contingent issues but also to those issues that can be anticipated by analysing the geopolitical and geoeconomic context. The situation calls for a renewed sense of responsibility on the part of the three Institutions, in order that what is possible is carried out and the decision is made not to address what needs to be put off.
After Bulgaria and Romania have returned to Europe, we believe that enlargement must end, in order that the Union may gather strength through dialogue between the Institutions and the citizens. At the same time, the links with the European Central Bank need to be addressed in a fresh way, because the Union will never have a future if the political bodies do not have the necessary influence on the drafting of monetary policy. We call on the Commission and the Council to pronounce on this issue without delay.
The Union has already experienced difficult periods from which it has emerged with the introduction of new initiatives: as a result of the French National Assembly’s rejection in 1954 of the Treaty instituting the European Defence Community, the Conference of Messina was created, followed by the Treaties of Rome. As a result of the European Community’s stagnation in the 1970s, the Genscher-Colombo project came about, and following the vote at the European Council in Milan in 1985, under President Craxi, the Single European Act was attained. We are therefore optimistic that the new Europe can arise out of this very period in which it is clear that the headlong rush of the pro-Europeans and the pessimism of the Eurosceptics provide no guarantees for the future either of individuals or of society as a whole. Eurorealism is the only path of the present, and it is based on democratic choices and on respect for national identities, in order for a united and shared Europe to be constructed."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples