Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-03-25-Speech-3-410"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090325.30.3-410"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Ladies and gentlemen, today I will complete my speech here in Czech. I will try to summarise and at the same time to answer some of the questions that have been raised here. I think there are three issues. Firstly I would like to thank everyone participating in last week’s hearing and in this plenary debate. If it has been the first debate of its kind for a long time then that can only be a good thing and I think that the first conclusion is that we must lead the debate and we must continue with it. That is the aim of the Platform of Memory and Conscience. Why is it important to have such a platform at the European level? It is important as an instrument against forgetting. If we forget the past, of course, we create an opportunity for it to return through the back door in the future. This is also a chance to combat the relativisation of past crimes. Hitler and Stalin are two of a kind. Of course there were countries where Nazism enabled or helped to bring about the subsequent establishment of Communism and its associated crimes. Any kind of relativisation, however – and I do not want to politicise here – any kind of relativisation is extremely dangerous.
Secondly we must retain historical awareness as part of European education. And here I think we must boost the financial instruments in order to ensure that awareness of Europe’s totalitarian past has a place in the area of education. This was one of the findings of the hearing that was held last week. This requires resources and I would like to thank the Commission and Commissioner Figeľ specifically for the fact that the Commission is willing to cooperate in this matter.
Last but not least is the question of where the debate should lead. The Presidency is short, lasting just six months. We are at the half-way point and of course I am not pretending that when this Parliament breaks up shortly we can achieve the impossible, but I do think that the idea of creating certain Europe-wide institutions, whether museums, research institutes or foundations, is what we need. The hearing last week was presented jointly by the representatives of several similar institutions that exist at the national level and in my opinion there is a very urgent need to have such institutions at the pan-European level. However, that task belongs more to bodies that are responsible for continuity than to the six-monthly rotating Presidency. If our task was to contribute towards initiating certain debates then I would like to thank you once again for responding to this debate and I challenge those of you who will be responsible for continuity in the future to continue the debate and perhaps one day it will lead to such institutions really being set up."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples