Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-10-07-Speech-3-161"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20091007.17.3-161"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"− Mr President, it has been an interesting debate, which I am sure, to some extent, repeats the discussions that have been held in Ireland and elsewhere.
This is what happened. Civil society also engaged, as I think Mr Kelly explained very well. I am not ashamed of the fact that we made a citizens’ summary of the Lisbon Treaty which was then published in the big newspapers – uncontested by anybody I may add – so that citizens could themselves read a summary in understandable language of the full Treaty, so that they could judge by themselves what was in there, what was true or not.
I think the legal guarantees helped, because then it was clarified that they did not have to worry about neutrality or abortion or any of the other concerns. So this was clarified and they got legal guarantees and they got a Commissioner – and thank you, Ireland, because it means that there will be a Swedish Commissioner also from now on, also a German one, and one from Greece etc., so I think we also have to thank the Irish for setting that straight.
Of course, we do not debate these things in a political vacuum. The reality will also influence how we think about these issues, and there is nothing wrong with that, but I think we should always, in the analysis that follows after a referendum, think very carefully about any fear factors on both sides, because fear is a very strong emotion and it might be misused. So I think that the debate that will follow in Ireland should also address how to avoid using or misusing any fear factor. But the reality showed that the Irish people believe that they have a place in the centre of Europe, and that they will be helped by belonging fully to Europe and not being questioned about whether this is true or not.
I also hope that the Commission can continue to play this role of providing factual objective information, but the debate will go on because, remember, the upside of a referendum is that you have to engage with citizens. You have to provide information and a debate and a discussion. The downside is that it also divides the population. You are forced to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and that can stay for a long time in the hearts and minds of the Irish as well. We have a duty, an obligation democratically, to also take the concerns of the ‘no’ side seriously, to continue the debate and make sure that the EU issues are integrated into the normal political debate, including by civil society in Ireland from now on, and in the rest of Europe in the same way. This is part of the reason why we did not have a higher voter turnout: that it is not part of the daily discussions about politics in each and every Member State.
That has to be done and I hope that there will be a Commissioner responsible for both citizenship and communication from now on, and hopefully under the new Lisbon Treaty.
Could I just start with some facts. It is the Member States’ governments who decide on the method for ratification. There is no way that the EU institutions can force a Member State to choose either a referendum or a parliamentary ratification. I think it is very important to say this. It is interesting that those who speak very strongly in favour of independent nation states are also the ones who would be willing to impose a referendum on all other Member States, which I find a bit strange.
Now Ireland decided to carry out a second referendum. Let us be very honest; this always carries a political risk, but it was the Irish Government which decided that they were willing to do so. And why did they do that?
Incidentally, it is not unusual to repeat referenda: that has been done previously on domestic issues, and in certain Member States you can come back several times on a domestic issue too, so let us be intellectually honest about this whole procedure.
I think we have heard a very good analysis from the Irish MEPs themselves, from Mr Kelly, from Mary MacDonald, from Mr De Rossa: they offered an explanation on why there was a change among the Irish population, on why they moved towards a ‘yes’ vote, and I think we have had good answers.
I think some MEPs have a very strange way of looking at democracy as very static and absolute. They maybe prefer to forget that this is a discussion about a reform. It is a process that started in Laeken many years ago and has involved different democratic bodies and discussions over the years to try to find a common way of taking decisions in a more modern, more democratic and efficient way. Member States and their leaders have, of course, invested a lot of time and energy in this procedure and this is why it is not static: it cannot be compared with a football match. I am sorry, you cannot count scores in the same way as in a football match, because we also have to listen to each other.
And this is what was done. The concerns of the Irish people were listened to and they did it themselves in Ireland. Why do we have to explain? The Irish themselves, their national parliament, debated in a subcommittee the reasons why there was a ‘no’ vote – because this came as a surprise to many there. So they looked at the reasons.
I was there myself. I was at the fashion fair in Dublin, I was at the fish market in Cork, I was at the public meeting in Donegal, and what many people said first of all was: Well, we have not actually read the full text of the Treaty, it is a very complex legal text and it is difficult to understand exactly what this is all about.
Some said they were very afraid that what was on the posters might be true, that the EU will decide on a minimum wage which is EUR 1.48: can that really be true? Or is it true that the EU will impose conscription to a European army and send very young people to Afghanistan in a European army: can this be true? What kind of statements are these? Should I believe in them? So there were a lot of worries and a lot of real concerns and mainly, I would say, a lack of information and a need for their concerns to be taken seriously."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples