Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-27-Speech-4-052"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060427.3.4-052"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I congratulate the rapporteur Mr Mavrommatis for the hard work he has put into preparing this excellent report.
It is undeniable that in a Union of 25, soon to be 27 different nations, having almost half a billion inhabitants and more than 20 official languages, it is imperative for individual citizens to be able to command the use of more than merely their mother tongue. To this end, measures to promote multilingualism and language learning through the introduction of a European Indicator of Language Competence seem essential and reports like the one before us this morning deserve our full support.
However, is this really the answer to achieving the best communication possible between European citizens? Would this level of communication be achieved in the most efficient and most economic way? My answer to both of these questions is no. To substantiate my position, let me use the example of our Parliament, which represents a much-scaled-down model of the multilingual EU.
In this House, representing 25 Member States, we communicate using 20 different languages. In fact it is laid down in the Treaties establishing this Union that we have the right to use our mother tongue to communicate in the organs of the EU. This is all very well, but what does it mean in practice? It means that at any given part-session there can be up to 400 cross-interpretations in this room.
If I were to speak in my mother tongue, Greek, to my Estonian colleague, then what I say in Greek has to be translated first into most probably English or French and then translated for the second time from English or French into Estonian. For my Estonian colleague to answer to me, then the reverse translation route has to be followed. This is not a 21st-century way of conducting communication in Europe. Not to mention the enormous amount of paperwork that is translated into 20 different languages and not to mention that approximately half the European Parliament’s budget for running costs is spent on interpretation and translation.
Therefore, the real answer to better communication in a united Europe is for all of us to use only one working language of communication. Yes, we have to be seen to protect and preserve our national pride and culture, but we must also progress with the times and strive for a betterment of the unity and efficiency of our European family. After all, how united can a family be if every member speaks a different language? The true unity of Europe will be achieved when we have a common working language of communication. This is in fact going to happen in the future whether we like it or not. It is inevitable.
Looking at statistics today we see that approximately 38% of EU citizens can use English as a language of communication with French coming second at approximately 14% only. Therefore, why can we not be brave enough to take the common-sense step and at the same time as supporting multilingualism start laying down the foundations for deciding which second language will be the common language for Europe? Yes, let us face the facts, let us be practical and honest and let us say that this second language has to be English."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples