Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-26-Speech-3-034"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030326.5.3-034"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I should like to say to the Presidents that there is a degree of masochism in linking a series of debates at European summits in this way. Indeed, as the Greek Presidency indicated, these summits represent the high point of hypocrisy. The peak of absurdity in this chronicle of a break up foretold, is that for once, Europe did say the same thing, even if it did not speak with a single voice. I refer to the Europe of the institutions. All the institutions came out in favour of the same approach. The European Parliament declared itself on 31 January, the European Council on 17 February, followed by the Commission through the words of Mr Patten and your own words, Mr Prodi. They all declared themselves in favour of the approach put forward by France, Germany and Belgium. It involved giving precedence to the law enshrined in the United Nations Security Council. For once too, the Europe of the institutions was at one with the people of Europe. The people of Europe also gave overwhelming indeed unanimous support to this same approach. We may actually be witnessing the birth of a new form of European political public opinion transcending national boundaries.
Europe certainly did speak with a single voice. Even better, Europe spoke with the same voice. So what? Mr Prodi, vacuous statements are being attributed to Mussolini. He might well have said that when it came down to it, governing Italy was not as difficult. The difficulty lay in that it served no purpose. In the light of current developments, it seems to me that Europe is in danger of becoming an Italy raised to the power of 15 and later of 25.
The difficulty is not quite as Mr Simitis described it. It is far more complex. This is not some kind of agricultural marathon, where one has to adjudicate between carrots and turnips. Mr Simitis, your comments were unworthy of your position. For the first time since the Treaty of Rome, Europe finds itself divided on objectives rather than on methods, means or timetables. One half of Europe has become the adversary of the other. That is the crux of the issue. We are up against two opposing concepts of law, two opposing visions of the world, two opposing cosmogonies. That last word comes from Greek, Mr Simitis. In this very House, you have seen banners emblazoned with
and others with
. Do you really believe this is like dealing with carrots and turnips when no decision has yet been taken on the film’s ending? Mr Simitis, eurospeak is no different from other meaningless political speak.
Mr Prodi, you referred to a European defence system. There has been much talk of one. Why not? Europe’s last chance could indeed be to create a genuinely European defence system. I have to tell you here and now, however, that this debate will take place in other fora, including the level of the Convention. The European defence system will not be created within NATO any more than the single currency was created in Fort Knox."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Give a chance to war"1
"Stop the killers"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples