Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-16-Speech-2-027"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031216.1.2-027"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, there is no doubt that the Brussels fiasco has landed the European Union in a grave crisis. This is the first failure of an enlarged European Union, even before the accession of new Member States. It represents a setback for European integration, but what brought it about? The Brussels summit did not focus on the creation of a democratic, social and peaceful Europe. Instead, power and influence were haggled over, and a narrow-minded nationalism again prevailed in yet another demonstration of the fact that Intergovernmental Conferences are completely unsuited to advancing European integration. The European idea sustained serious damage at the summit, at which it was the real loser.
There were winners, though, as well; they include, for example, the USA, for it is the USA that will profit from the summit’s conclusions on European security and defence policy, which tied Europe and NATO together as brothers in arms and put us under American guardianship in security policy matters.
I am in favour of a European constitution – a modern and progressive one. It was with that in mind that I involved myself in the Convention, but it should give politicians like ourselves serious misgivings that – figuratively speaking – nobody took to the streets to demonstrate in favour of the constitution that the Convention produced. Only 38% of the public at large have ever heard anything about the Convention and only a fraction of them are familiar with the text. Quite apart from that, the real problem is to be found elsewhere, in that the public are not convinced that their fundamental concerns and needs are a priority. The degree to which they are right about this is demonstrated, to take one example, by the fact that the IGC as a whole did not even once turn its attention to the inherent contradictions between Part 3 and Part 1 of the draft, and by the manifest fact that two mutually antithetical economic philosophies are to remain in the text of the constitution – the social market economy on the one hand and free competition on the other.
That is not the way to get people enthusiastic about a European constitution. I hope that the time of reflection – the crisis – will be understood as an opportunity. I urge you to have an open discussion with the public about the constitutional project, and, above all, take seriously the serious criticisms that civil society makes of the Convention’s draft."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples