Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-05-23-Speech-3-250"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070523.20.3-250"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for his presentation today. I was struck by the ideals of compromise and consensus contained within his speech. Particularly when we look forward to Europe’s future, it is a Europe that has to be based on consensus, because, as Mr Daul said earlier on, if Europe means anything, Europe means equality. Europe means equality between nations, between peoples, between cultures. Europe means equality between all people within the European Union.
That means that you cannot drive a coach-and-four and force everybody down the same path. It makes it more difficult to find agreement, yes, but it is still the best way of finding agreement. What we heard yesterday from Mr Prodi was not the new way forward, it was a threat: a threat that we will create a two-speed Europe for those who are with us and those who are against us, words more reminiscent of George W. Bush than of a European statesman.
I am convinced that the future development of European policy and European ideals will not come from telling people to look at the great opportunities they have lost, to look at the things that they have thrown away. It will come by us convincing people that this is the best way forward, that this is the best path to follow.
Many here have mentioned issues such as climate change, pension security, energy security and others. Yes, Europe can play a role and Europe can do things that are positive. Likewise, with regard to immigration and our own internal security, we can do things in a cooperative and consensual way that can achieve good. We have already done that, but there are still things that are best left to Member States, things that require unanimous agreement in the Council, not qualified majority all of the time.
I think it is wrong, and I use this opportunity to point this out again. Commissioner Kovács and others are coming forward with proposals for harmonisation of taxes that they do not have the power to implement under the present Treaties and which the new Treaty would not give them the power to implement, and yet they continue to do it. Why? Because it is ideologically driven. It is a political move and one that is driving people further and further away. If officialdom can ignore the rules, why should we not ignore them too?
George Bernard Shaw once said that some men see things as they are, and wonder, ‘Why?’. We should dream things as they should be, and say, ‘Why not?’. Consensus, compromise, cooperation – yes, that is the way forward, but most importantly of all, we must convince the people that it is the right way forward."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples