Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-06-14-Speech-3-012"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060614.2.3-012"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start with a comment for the benefit of the President-in-Office of the Council. The day before yesterday, this Parliament adopted an interim report on the Temporary Committee on the CIA. The voting in my group was fairly consistent, that in the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats fairly inconsistent, but nevertheless a majority recognised that the EU is founded upon the rule of law – and I would ask the President-in-Office to convey that message to the Council in preparation for the meeting with George Bush. The existence of the EU and its Member States is based on the philosophy of the rule of law. The EU is a place where the rule of law prevails; Guantánamo and the CIA flights are places of lawlessness. A community based on the rule of law such as the EU, which defends its values, must say a clear ‘no’ to the abuse of our institutions by the US secret services and an even more emphatic ‘no’ to the existence of legal vacuums such as Guantánamo. I would ask the President-in-Office to convey that message at the Summit.
Mr Poettering has made reference to my legendary objectivity, for which I am most obliged to him. He forgot to add that he was quick to join my criticism of the President of the Commission when he and Mrs Martens sent a joint letter with similar content to the Commission President.
To Mr Schüssel, too – all of them members of the PPE-DE Group. It is not our problem if your own house is not in order, Mr Poettering.
The President of the Commission has merited praise today, therefore – if he says the right thing, we are on his side. We say ‘yes’ to the need for this Constitution, and ‘yes’ to the reforms that the Constitution must bring in order to replace the inadequate Treaty of Nice. The fact that he is now stating that in public rather than always leaving Commissioner Wallström in the lurch, that he is declaring his support for it in front of this Parliament, represents progress. Bravo, you have done well, Mr President of the Commission.
That alone is insufficient, however – something else is needed, something that has also been mentioned today. We need to ask those whose referendums are responsible for throwing out this Constitution what they are actually proposing, how we can surmount this obstacle. The Governments of France and the Netherlands should also be obliged to suggest to the EU ways of resolving this dilemma. I have a suggestion for France. I am fairly sure that, if Mr Chirac were to announce that he would resign immediately if the people voted ‘yes’ to the Constitution, we would be assured of overwhelming majority support for the Constitution from the French. One thing is clear, however: the EU’s crisis is also a crisis for some governments, and that is the reason time and again for the inability of the European Council to move forward on most points, as some governments do not want this Constitutional Treaty and others are hiding behind those who do not want it. Incidentally, that is true of Denmark, Portugal and all those with a difference of opinion from the three present and future Council Presidencies. The Prime Minister of Finland, Matti Vanhanen, is courageous in symbolically ratifying and declaring his support for the Constitution during the Finnish Council Presidency.
I think that it is good that Austrian Chancellor Schüssel has declared his support for this Constitution. Although the proposal he has made for this referendum is not a new one and has already been discussed by the Convention, it does show that Austria wants this Constitution. The German Government, which will then hold the third successive Council Presidency, has declared its firm support for this Constitution, which is a good sign. Anyone who says that this Constitution is dead is mistaken.
The Council’s proposal, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Treaties of Rome, to demand a solemn declaration from leaders of whether they do indeed wish to further European integration, whether they really support the principles of deepening integration, whether they still support the spirit of the Treaties of Rome 50 years on, is a good idea. The content is what makes the difference – it must state that the solemn declaration being made is one not of noble objectives, but of concrete action. It could read, for example: yes, we want the Constitution – its content, in particular – to become reality. After all, one thing is absolutely clear – and I say this on behalf of our group and of all its members: we want EU enlargement. We welcome the draft conclusions on Romania and Bulgaria. We know that the prospective accession of the Balkan States has a peacemaking effect there. For this reason, we declare our belief in the necessity of enlargement. Without the constitutional reforms and the associated division of powers, however; without the clarity of action or the democratising potential that the Constitution holds, this enlargement is impossible – unless we want to destroy Europe, which we do not. For this reason, we are all required to continue to fight for this Constitution, so that Europe retains its basis in the rule of law and acquires the economic strength it needs to meet the challenges of the 21st century."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"(Heckling from Mr Poettering)"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples