Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-18-Speech-4-170"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991118.7.4-170"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The matters left unresolved by the Maastricht Treaty and then by the Amsterdam Treaty, despite its mandate, have now come to the fore once again under the Damocles’ sword of enlargement. Who stands to gain from further integration of the European Union? The people of Europe who, with every day that passes, watch their democratic and social rights eroded and their democratic victories corrupted in the name of competitiveness and by pressure to support a more and more autocratic structure? I think not.
With the threat of deferred enlargement or even the withdrawal of the Union behind its original borders and in a bid to win new markets and share the plunder, provided that this can be done without rules, the capitalist system of the monopolies is trying to reconcile its internal differences, which were and which still are significant, in order to serve the common interest: i.e. overexploiting workers and achieving maximum profits.
Both the proposals of the so-called Wise Men and the Commission’s proposals lead in the same direction. Even greater inequality between the peoples of Europe, between the Member States of the European Union and between the candidate countries. What other purpose can there be to all these proposals which we hear and which, generally speaking, are incorporated into the report, on voting changes in the Council, on changes to the number or responsibilities of Commissioners, on reduced grass roots representation in the EC following the increase in the number of Member States, other than to strengthen the position of the rich countries of the EU, to strengthen the position of monopoly undertakings, the majority of which are established in those countries and to play down grass roots or national opposition to EU decisions which adversely affect the grass roots and which might even affect national interests?
What purpose can there be to the attempt to generalise the voting rule and the substantive, perhaps even formal repeal of the veto, despite deceptive grievances deliberately expounded to the contrary, other than to restrict the potential for grass roots intervention, at least where it opposes the choices made by the forces of capitalism in “smaller” countries?
How can the people of Europe call for the international role of the EU to be reinforced in the form of a new political and monetary union and a common defence and security policy when the EU is responsible, together with NATO, for the first act of war since the Second World War, i.e. the attack on Yugoslavia, in violation of every concept of international law? Everyone understands that a currency, in the capitalist world, needs an army to defend and impose it. This is the purpose behind the proposals for a common foreign and defence policy and an armed wing in the Union. So that arms can be used to support the interests of the monopolies against the people of Europe itself and of non-EU countries. This was proven by the campaign against Yugoslavia which, in addition to being illegal, was also unnecessary, at least for the reasons quoted, because it was made glaringly clear by the UNO itself, that all the government and mass media claims were shamefaced lies.
The clearest proof of the type of security being promoted is provided by the Amsterdam Treaty itself, the incorporation of the Schengen acquis, the creation of a Community prosecution service and the keeping of records on citizens’ political convictions, ideological stance, trade union activity and love life.
We are opposed to this EU, this lackey of imperialism and big business, and we are opposed to the reversal which this autocracy means for democracy. The EU cannot change with Intergovernmental Conferences, nor do the proposed negative institutional changes represent a change for the better for the people of Europe. The people themselves will oppose, intervene and change the power ratios in order to bring down this anti-grass roots, anti-democratic, autocratic structure which exists to serve big business and create a Europe of peace and collaboration, friendship and equality between peoples, real democracy and freedom and economic prosperity for the benefit of the workers."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples