Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-10-07-Speech-3-060"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20091007.17.3-060"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think that we have to learn a clear lesson from what happened in Ireland.
To close, I should simply like to say one thing. We should continue the debate after the Treaty of Lisbon. The Treaty of Lisbon is not the end of the story. The constitutionalisation of Europe cannot stop with the Treaty of Lisbon. If we do not have the courage to continue this debate once the Treaty of Lisbon is in place, I think that we shall miss a serious rendezvous with history, Europe’s rendezvous.
The Irish, as Guy Verhofstadt said, returned a 67% vote, which is a large majority, because reality caused them to see clearly. The reality of the crisis, first of all, in which they felt that they needed Europe. However, they also felt that this vote actually implied – as Joseph Daul rightly said – that either they said yes or they started an exit process. What needs to be understood is that referendums in Europe only make sense if they have consequences. If it is a game, a whim, you can say no, but it is business as usual. So you react depending on your mood.
I believe that the debate on Europe needs to continue. We need to arrive at a European referendum, where all Europeans vote on the basis of a qualified majority and those who say no need to say if they respect the vote and are staying in or if they are out. If the English believe that this remark is directed at them, they are not wrong, because we need to put a stop once and for all to a Europe which can be the victim of blackmail. A democratic space cannot live with blackmail and if we do not manage to resolve this problem, I think that the European democratic space will not work.
The second thing which we need to understand clearly is the situation we are in. Guy Verhofstadt said two or three things on this subject, but what frightens me is that, for Mr Barroso, there has been a public debate. We did not win, we lost, that is life, but there was a real public debate. Then there was a confrontation and the majority won.
Mr Schulz, you should not always point the finger at others. If all the socialists had voted with us against Mr Barroso, there would have been no majority. That too needs to be said; you cannot just say one thing or the other. That is life; that is how it is. Yes, it is true, Martin, you like blaming others, but once in a while, the social democrats should take responsibility for their defeats, otherwise we shall never win.
I should like to say something now about the process and here I disagree with you, Mr Reinfeldt. We are going to have a President of the European Council. I do not want this to be a
. All of a sudden, at the last minute, you are going to propose someone and, within a week, the decision will have been taken. I think that Europe is entitled to a public debate, that all the states should be entitled to give an opinion on your proposals. Be it Mr Blair, Mr Balkenende, Mr Jean-Claude Juncker or Mr Guy Verhofstadt, I think that we are entitled to a public debate. It should not be the governments which decide on the President of Europe, behind closed doors, at the last minute.
The reason I say this is because everyone knows that, today, public opinion is not in favour of Mr Blair, everyone knows that it is unfair for Jean-Claude Juncker not to have a chance simply because Mrs Merkel and Mr Sarkozy are against him. That is not a public democratic debate. We need to put everything on the table and then you decide. The same thing applies to the High Representative. Put your proposals on the table.
I have one thing to say to you. Mr Barroso is correct and Mr Verhofstadt is correct in this instance. You made us elect Mr Barroso by saying that it was urgent and now you are going to have a ‘lame duck’ Commission which will just keep going until a decision can be taken. It all depends on the Czechs.
However, there is another consideration. We proposed extending the entire Commission, including Mr Barroso, precisely so that it would be able to conduct the negotiations for Copenhagen on a full-time basis. I think it unacceptable not to launch the Commission procedure straight away, by putting the names on the table. Mr Verhofstadt made a good proposal: if the Czechs do not state their position, then the Czechs will have no commissioner, because under the Treaty of Nice, the number of commissioners will have to be reduced. If the Czechs state their position before the end, things will be done within the framework of the Treaty of Lisbon and they will have a commissioner. Everything needs to be put on the table."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples