Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-06-13-Speech-3-040"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010613.1.3-040"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, as has already been said a number of times, the Irish "no" was not a "no" to enlargement. Not one single political party in Ireland argued against enlargement, either on the "no" side or the "yes" side: only one organisation – a non-party organisation which campaigned for "no" – argued against enlargement.
The Irish people has spoken on Nice and its decision will be respected. The people of the other fourteen Member States are also entitled to have their say on the Treaty in accordance with their constitutions. For them it will be expressed through their democratically elected parliaments. They must not be denied that right.
It is ironic, that the people in this House who argued against Nice, because Nice was too much Europe, are now saying that Europe should instruct its Member States not to ratify Nice. It beggars belief that this undemocratic attitude is being expressed here by the Irish Greens and by others. Could I put it simply for them, because it seems to be very difficult for them to understand: do they argue that the World Cup should be lost because the first team that plays should lose if it does not score the first goal, or should the game go its full term and should every qualified team play the complete game to the end? There is time for ratification, even if we need extra time, let us take that time.
As a democracy, where the people are sovereign, the Irish people is also entitled to decide to reconsider its decision and to confirm or reverse it. We now need a sustained debate on Nice. Those parties who supported Nice should seek a mandate at the next general election, which will take place by June 2002, to present a new proposal on Nice to the people before December 2002.
John Cushnahan and I have published a seven-point initiative on measures, which could help to clarify the issues and to assuage fears in Ireland. I am happy to report that one of those initiatives, the establishment of a forum in Ireland on the future of Europe, has been adopted by the Irish Government. That is a proposal which I tabled in December 2000 after Nice. I thank the Swedish minister here this morning for her confirmation that there is going to be a convention.
It is not easy to discern the myriad of concerns, some domestic, some European, which gave rise to the "no" result in Ireland. There is one overriding and general concern, the sense that people are losing control of their government and their lives. People know that the European project is necessary and important, but they are at a loss as to how they fit into the scheme of things. The bottom line is that if we want people in Europe in every country to initiate a new experiment in sharing their democracy, sovereignty, benefits of freedoms, then we, as their elected representatives have to lead courageously by spelling out in great detail how it will work.
In conclusion, the rights of each Member State and each person who lives in Europe must be guaranteed. That can best be done through a new federalism based on a European constitution. So far, we have only the vaguest outline of what that might represent. We have a mountain to climb, but I am confident that the people in Ireland and the rest of Europe will rise to the challenge when they are given the chance."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples