Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-04-Speech-2-072"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000704.3.2-072"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, there was a time, when you yourself, Mr Chirac, took sides against the foreigner. What a contrast there is between your Cochin address and your speech to the Reichstag, in which you gave a foreign parliament the first taste of your federalist thinking, supporting the idea of a European constitution! Have you changed or have times changed to this extent? Does one have to be modern to have the support of a few well-meaning broadsheets? Or indeed, as in the case of the Treaty of Amsterdam, is the need of the moment all the explanation necessary? Was it really necessary – although not very Gaullist even in 1974 – to become a centrist under Mr Mitterrand, even though the support you gained on the left was more than offset by the support you lost on the right?
You recommended saying ‘yes’ to Maastricht because the 1995 presidential elections were drawing close. It would have been a simple matter to dismiss the single currency, the so-called single currency, and put it off forever but you preferred to reduce France to the mediocre level of a general council, rather than the rank of a statesman.
Because Mr Mitterrand had had his Treaty, you wanted one of your own, in Amsterdam. Since the Treaty of Amsterdam proved insufficient, you are looking for another, this time in Nice. Basically, you are acting like a political schemer of the Third Republic, constantly underestimating France’s potential and overestimating that of your rivals. You have not noticed that in the nuclear age, the electric age, strength no longer lies in numbers, and that, in order to maintain its leading position, France must continue along the path initiated by General de Gaulle.
Defending France’s interests alone in all areas – but you are, of course, all anti-Gaullist over there, that goes without saying – in all areas and always, being restricted as little as possible by international commitments, such as Europe, NATO, the UN, G7 –8 –9, not waging war on behalf of others, not ratifying the treaties before the others do. How can you possibly claim that this supranational Europe strengthens France’s hand, when France holds only 11% of the votes within European bodies, a percentage which does not even match its economic power and still less its position in the field of leading edge technology?
By instigating a simplification of the closer cooperation procedures, you have offered our European partners a two- rather than a three-way directorate. I hope that those who are excluded from this will be opposed to the attempt which, in fact, is playing into the hands of the Germans. Is that not right, Mr Cohn-Bendit?
Belittling France by allowing important decisions to be taken without France’s agreement, when, through this closer cooperation, European treaties may, if necessary, be amended to the detriment of France..."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"(Mixed reactions in the Chamber)"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples