Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-31-Speech-3-026"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060531.9.3-026"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for your speech, Mr Verhofstadt. You said that we need courage, and I thought that your speech was very courageous. I have seldom heard a member of the European Council be as critical of the institution as you have just been.
Perhaps that is how to get the Constitution accepted in France. However, it is quite clear that there is a connection between the depression in certain Member States and the fact that their populations rejected the constitution. We cannot deny that, but, given that it is the case, it also sharpens our eye for those people who said yes. It also makes us more acutely aware that courage is worthwhile, because one head of government in Europe did put his political fate on the line for the constitution – Mr Juncker said to the people of Luxembourg, 'I believe that, in the long term, more Europe is the only way that we can keep our small country as socially, economically and ecologically strong as it is today. I am absolutely convinced of that. If you have a different opinion, if you think that Europe needs to be administered differently, then you need to find a different Prime Minister'. So, he linked his fate with that of the constitution, and thus won his people over to the constitution in a referendum just a few weeks after the 'no' votes in France and the Netherlands.
I think you are right, Mr Verhofstadt. Europe is lacking in courage. Nobody has the courage to say 'I have a conviction, and I am prepared to put my political fate on the line for this conviction'. Members of the European Council have taken the decision to stand before their parliaments and say 'even though the overwhelming majority of the population is against it, we must send soldiers to such-and-such a place, because there is no other way'. They could do that, they managed to push through their conviction there; I will make no comment on that here. I should have liked them to apply the same energy to the European Constitution and to say, with the same energy, 'I will fight for my conviction, just like we fought for other projects'. If they had done so, Europe would have got much further. I am grateful to you, and I am firmly convinced that, if there were more Verhofstadts in Europe, we would make much more progress.
It is true that the crisis in Europe is also, in part, a crisis of the European Heads of State and Government. I promise you – and this is something I say frequently – that in future I will say: it is, in part, a crisis of the European Heads of State or Government minus Mr Juncker and Mr Verhofstadt. It is quite clear that both you and Mr Juncker, in what you have said here and in what he said last week, are demonstrating a clear commitment. It is a commitment not just to strengthening integration or to expansion; you have made a commitment to a fact that should really go without saying for a Head of State or Government, namely that you stand by what you say and do. In Rome, all of the Heads of State or Government who sit on the Council and take part in the summit ceremoniously – there could hardly have been more ceremony – signed this treaty, but some of them then went home and acted as if they had no idea where they had been. That is one aspect of the crisis surrounding this constitution. It is very much to your credit that you have stood up for it so clearly. I can tell you that I should have liked to have heard a speech like the one you gave today from certain leaders of other institutions in Europe.
I should like to discuss two elements to which you referred directly, Mr Verhofstadt. The question of whether we will get 20 'yes' votes, and how we should deal with the two 'no' votes, is an important one. We now have 15 states. We very much welcome the fact that the Finnish Presidency of the Council has stood up and said: no, for us the constitution is not dead. Mr Vanhanen is doing what you are doing. My government says that he has signed the constitutional treaty; we want our Parliament to decide. That is the logical and normal way to go.
The Estonians ratified the constitution a few weeks ago. I do not see why we could not achieve the figure of 20 so that the agreement between the Heads of State or Government to which you referred – not the agreement by the European Parliament, but the agreement by the Heads of State or Government – can enter into force. Therefore, we cannot give up on the Constitutional Treaty, and it is reckless for senior representatives of the European Union to say 'let us think of something else' rather than first of all following the ratification process through to the end. That was an important statement that you made to Parliament today.
You also referred to another particularly important point. The issue of how we in the European Union even assess what has happened differs from one political camp to another and from one country's political class to another.
There is one thing I am sure of, though. This morning, Mr Poettering, I also spoke to the Dutch Minister for Foreign Affairs, Atzo Nicolaï. Surveys in the Netherlands show that the vast majority of Dutch people are in favour of the European Union. The same people who said 'no' in the referendum, when they are specifically asked whether they want more Europe, say 'yes'. They want more social protection, more environmental protection and more stability. Why, then, did they not vote for this Constitution, which provides more social protection, more environmental protection and more stability? They must have their reasons. Of course, it is partly due to problems in the EU, but it is also due to domestic politics in these countries.
I am pretty sure that, if Mr Chirac had said to the French people that he would resign if they accepted the Constitution, there would have been an overwhelming majority in favour of the Constitution in France. I am quite convinced of that."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples