Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-02-13-Speech-2-027"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070213.3.2-027"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, former Presidents, Mrs Merkel, Mr Barroso, the President of Parliament has just done a skilful job of describing the kind of political programme that one might perhaps have expected to hear from a President of the European Council or, indeed, of the Commission than from a President of Parliament in his role as arbiter.
In view of the group dynamics that often prevail in institutions, your speech, Mr President, concerning the will of the peoples no doubt reflects the opinion of the majority of this House. You will allow me, however, to express what lawyers in the English-speaking world call a dissenting opinion.
You spoke of the ‘temporary’ hitch – the word ‘temporary’ was yours - involving the draft European Constitution as it was received in France and the Netherlands. The impression you gave was that this was merely a hiccup limited to two Member States. However, everyone knows, or ought to know, that if this project had been submitted directly to the people of the Member States and not merely to members of the national parliaments, the document concerned would, in all probability, have been rejected much more widely.
We need, then, to know once and for all why, when nations express themselves freely in opposition to the dominant way of thinking, they go on being presented with the same menu that they have rejected. When, however, they come out in agreement with the dominant trend, it is emphasised that their commitment is apparently definitive, irrevocable and perpetual and that they will not be entitled to backtrack.
In your speech, you mentioned several important features of our European tradition, and four in particular: Greek philosophy, Roman law, Judaeo-Christian spirituality and the Enlightenment. That, however, is a crucial element of the problem: how faithful is the European Union to these components of its intellectual, moral and spiritual heritage?
Is the European Union now inspired by Christian values or by a general hedonism that is out to destroy these same values in the name of a human rights ideology that brooks no resistance but of which variable geometry is always a feature?
Are the structure and operation of the EU governed by Greek philosophy’s demand for clarity and simplicity and by the Greek political tradition of citizens’ direct participation in the affairs of the city state; or are we instead seeing the implementation of a heavy, centralised and shortly to be outmoded structure that is ostensibly designed for governing almost 500 million Europeans but that, in practice, disregards their differences?
Is European legislation inspired by the precision and concision of Roman law or is it a concoction of thousands of obscure and wordy texts involving detailed restrictions? Are we genuinely respectful of the tradition of public debate handed down to us by the Greeks and Romans? As for the Enlightenment, I would not conceal from you the concern we felt last month on hearing Chancellor Merkel quote freely from Voltaire in this House but then say to us – not literally, admittedly, but in essence - that there should be no tolerance for the enemies of tolerance - a statement that recalls the words of the French revolutionary Saint-Just, spoken before the revolutionary court that instigated the Terror: ‘no liberty for the enemies of liberty’.
To conclude, Europe is the only region in the history of humanity to have invented the liberty and equality of nations. It is the region in which the people have always risen up against putative dictatorships – a fact that explains their current distrust of the wayward direction taken by the EU. We do not need a Eurocratic superstate to guarantee the mutual security of our nations and borders, to launch detailed industrial, cultural and research cooperation projects and to protect us properly against migratory flows or against imports of products that have been manufactured for next to nothing and that are ruining our industries. The instruments of international law are more than adequate to this task. We have to rediscover the true genius of Europe and the law appropriate to Europeans."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples