Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-06-22-Speech-3-031"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050622.13.3-031"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr Juncker, Mr Barroso, I would like to start by extending my warmest thanks to Mr Juncker for the respect he has just shown the European Parliament by giving us such a sincere, transparent and enlightening report on the European Council. In my 26 years of parliamentary experience, this is a first for me. I will return to this in a moment, and tomorrow, but, before that, I would like to dwell for a moment on the last topic brought up by Mr Juncker: the ratification of the draft Constitutional Treaty.
I note with interest that, three weeks after the success of the ‘no’ vote to the ex-draft Constitutional Treaty, the truth is gradually pushing its way to the fore, both with regard to the demands expressed by these votes and with regard to their scope, which goes far beyond the two countries directly concerned. Thus, a survey commissioned by the Commission itself, following the referendum in France, was analysed in these terms in the Eurobarometer bulletin; I quote: ‘social concerns … [are] … at the heart of the “no” vote’. Among the main reasons cited for voting ‘no’ are that, and I quote: ‘economically speaking the draft is seen as too liberal’ and ‘the lack of social Europe’. The commentary adds, and again I quote, that ‘the rejection of Turkey’s membership of the EU was mentioned spontaneously by only 6% of people who voted “no”’. The electorate’s choice was, as the Eurobarometer document notes, made after careful consideration. We should also add that just 4% of the people surveyed declared themselves to be against Europe. The message is therefore clear: ‘yes’ to Europe, including an enlarged Europe, but ‘no’ to the liberal direction it is taking.
This sentiment is shared by many other peoples, which doubtless explains the domino effect of the first two ‘no’ votes. Lessons are starting to be drawn from these great manifestations of the citizens’ crisis of conscience with regard to Europe as it is, including by the European Trade Union Confederation, which has just called on the 25 to take into consideration, and I quote, ‘fear of lower social standards and neo-liberal policies’ in order to regain the confidence of European citizens. This is the context in which we need to assess the last European Council.
Let us summarise. It has decided to continue with the process of ratifying the ex-Constitutional Treaty by, and I quote, ‘altering the timetable according to circumstances’, which is a singularly cavalier attitude to democracy. It has agreed, and again I quote, ‘to reflect together’, to gain some time, as a high-up European official was kind enough to specify. Primarily, the European Council has, moreover, provided European opinion with the grossest caricature of this commercial, egotistical, directionless Europe, which our fellow citizens, as it happens, have quite rightly rejected: we could not have done better in turning our backs on the expectations of Europeans.
In this regard, Mr Juncker, having worked so hard to avoid such a deplorable outcome, found the right words to denounce the main culprit for this fiasco. Beyond that, it is the whole club of six, these countries which have, for months, been consumed by their obsession to freeze budgets at 1% of European revenues, that, in my view, incarnates a narrow concept of Europe, with no relation to our declared ambitions.
What real alternatives are there, not only in budgetary terms, but in terms of the direction of the institutional criteria: that, in the opinion of my group, is the agenda for the great citizens’ debate that we need to have on a European scale, and which I called for during our last part-session by quite particularly addressing the left of the House. Mr Schulz appears to be responding positively to this idea, but in a very institutional context. It seems to me that three of the conditions for the success of such a debate are, first, that it should be free from any pressure; next, that it should be open to actual citizens and not to institutional representatives of civil society; and, finally, that it should result in a new treaty that our fellow citizens can support this time.
I would add that the specific decisions that will be taken at European level during this pause for reflection must also demonstrate, in the eyes of our fellow citizens, our ability to listen to their message and our determination to take it fully into account. However, we will discuss that tomorrow in the presence of our next Presidency, which will clearly be different from the outgoing one. The great debate on the future of Europe is getting off to a good start."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples