Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-11-29-Speech-3-022"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061129.9.3-022"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr Ahern, re-election puts one in a good mood; perhaps that is the reason why my group has asked me to speak today, so that I might not be a mild-mannered group chairman.
I do, of course, Prime Minister, welcome you warmly on behalf of our group; thank you for coming. As you said, nobody knows what the future has in store for the constitutional treaty. I must admit that I would be happier if I definitely knew what the governments had in store for it; one and a half years’ break for reflection and thinking, one and a half years, already extended by a year, and what has come out of it? I can neither see nor hear anyone thinking, and nobody is talking to us, although you have today, and you are one of the few. We will perhaps return to your proposals, but what – over these eighteen months – has actually been thought or clarified? The great and good are not asking what lies behind this crisis; they do not want to know what motivated those who, in France and the Netherlands, said 'no', or about the disappointed expectation of the public, and just why it is that the public have been so systematically disappointed. Nor are they asking about new ways forward, about new exit routes from this crisis. Where, in fact, is any thought being given to that? I do not see much real cause for hope in a new beginning under the German Presidency of the Council.
I have been an observer of this since it all started. What brought about this constitution-making process was not insight or idealism; nor were the Heads of Government inspired by a vision to embark upon it. What did it was the lamentable fact that Amsterdam was a failure, that Nice was an outright disaster, that there was a massive crisis of confidence among all Europe’s peoples. It was the fact that this Union was up against a brick wall; the fact that it was, quite simply, impotent.
Then, of course, there was the double ‘no’. One ought to look into the reasons for it. What astonishes me is that politicians like opinion polls, and I have never heard of anyone who would shy away from quoting a good one. Eurobarometer ran very comprehensive and good surveys following the French and Dutch votes into the reasons for them, and into the public’s expectations, and – I am not going to talk about the people who voted ‘yes’ in what are now eighteen Member States with a massive majority of the people and states of Europe, but about the 62% of Dutch people and 65% of French people who said ‘no’ – well, they also said: ‘yes, we want a European constitution; we want it to be revised’ and they even said what they wanted this to achieve, namely more powers for the Union in social matters. I have never heard a member of a government reflect on that.
What you said today leaves me quite astonished. In essence, what you say boils down to two familiar proposals: a treaty instead of a constitution. I have to tell you, Prime Minister, that it was only the governments – and not the people of Europe – who were irritated by the idea that this political community should be endowed with a constitution. Forcing through the actual policies in the way you propose will fail, precisely because of this crisis of confidence in Europe, this crisis of European democracy."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples