Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-04-Speech-2-073"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000704.3.2-073"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Mr President, France is assuming the presidency of the European Union for the next six months. While it would seem necessary and legitimate to seek to reform the institutions and to give them a new lease of life, given that the system is so flawed and lacking in democracy, we should nonetheless not forget the main thing, which is the welfare, respect and full development of the peoples which make up the nations of Europe.
Does defending the national interest make one anti-European? Does asking for the directives such as those on ‘birds’, ‘habitats’, ‘open air markets’ or ‘biotechnologies’ to be amended make one anti-European? On the eve of enlargement, we need to carefully consider this
that some parties would like to make ‘immutable’ in principle, with scant regard for democracy and subsidiarity.
In conclusion, Mr President, we hope that you will have the determination to restore the right of expression to the elected representatives and the various peoples of Europe in order to prevent a new rural and territorial divide. In order for France to speak with a single voice, it is the voice of the people which must be heard. The ‘blues’ showed us the way. It was a fine victory, Mr President, but the championship was possible only thanks to the Europe of the nations!
I am a member of the Group for a Europe of Democracies and Diversities. This name in itself represents our programme, whose prime objective is to ensure that the identities and aspirations of each country are taken into optimum consideration, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.
Following the crisis of the Santer Commission – which rocked the institutions – why the devil did they bury the expert committee’s report exposing the serious mismanagement within the institutions? We must learn the lessons of the past in order to make preparations for the future to avoid, once again, strengthening the powers of the Commission, a technocratic structure operating without transparency or democracy. Should we not challenge the political dimension it has granted itself?
We cannot be content with a Europe adopting ever more dehumanised texts that are too far removed from the needs of the people, who are often the victims of such texts in their daily lives, especially when the vague nature of such texts often means that the final decision is made by the Court of Justice which, by dint of its power of interpretation, sets itself up as a true legislative authority, but without any political supervision. We reject government by officials as much as we reject government by judges.
Consequently, the IGC must not be the instrument of a reform which will turn the Europe of tomorrow into a technocratic monster, ever more ignorant of the peoples’ legitimate concerns and of the opinion of the national parliaments that represent them.
We cannot agree to this reform granting some states the right and the power to force binding texts on states which are unwilling. The institutional reform we are promised is putting a stranglehold on our nations, especially the smallest ones. New administrative and voting systems are being created which give power and hegemony to those that some people call pioneer states. This is not acceptable. Diversity must be respected, and we must allow diversities to be expressed, for they are the true wealth of Europe.
Whereas the construction of Europe ought to be seeking to achieve coordination between the policies of Member States, the objective of integration is leading us towards an intolerable process of uniformisation. This accelerated uniformisation, the origin of the single model, runs counter to the very thing that we strive to safeguard every day, namely diversity.
How is it possible to claim to defend the individual’s aspiration for a better life when every day challenging our cultures and our traditions a little more? The fact is, behind the institutional debates, there are a number of particularly important subjects, such as employment, health, food safety and the protection of local products.
In addition, there is the entire debate on balanced regional development and respect for the users of territories, and also the future of public services and state monopolies. We maintain that the French-style public service, which is of particular structural value in terms of regional planning and social cohesion, such as postal, railway and energy services, etc., must be defended against the Commission’s position."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Saint-Josse (EDD )."1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples