Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-07-04-Speech-3-036"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-07-04"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Programme of the Belgian presidency2
dcterms:Language	"da"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010704.1.3-036"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-07-04-Speech-3-0372
lpv:speaker	lp:Ole Krarup2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; PETI (1999-10-08--2001-09-09)3 substitute; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Malta Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member_of_the_bureau; EDD (1999-07-20--2001-12-10)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Slovenia Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-28--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Folkebevægelsen mod EU (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with South-east Europe (1999-09-28--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"There is, of course, no doubt about the main message of Mr Verhofstadt’s statement, of which we were also aware in advance: the integration process is to be consolidated, where that fine up-beat word ‘integration’ means more power to the EU institutions and a corresponding weakening of the national democracies. This is something of which the President-in-Office of the Council and, for that matter, the combined EU machine is very well aware, and they betray the fact when they talk about the distance between the EU and its people. This is described as a democratic deficit, and it is said that people must reconcile themselves with the EU’s institutions. What, then, is to be done about something that is undeniably, of course, a fundamental democratic problem? What is to be done when, time after time, the people vote against integration on those notably exceptional occasions when they are asked? Is the voice of the people being listened to? No, it is not. Instead, a complaint is voiced, most recently to the effect that the Irish people had voted wrongly, and it is also pointed out that there were not a great many people who voted and that those who did must have thought they were voting on something else. What is more, the vote was about the same as at the elections to the European Parliament. And so the integration and ratification process in connection with the Treaty of Nice is continued with as if nothing had happened. However, rhetoric is not enough, as the President-in-Office of the Council so commendably said. Ignoring a people’s clear statement about the integration process is not democracy, but autocracy. Autocracy must have a democratic façade, however, and the very telling words of the President-in-Office of the Council are designed to reconcile the people to the EU’s institutions. The Benelux Declaration of 21 June is a frightening example of this process. It is a so-called structured debate. Whether it be called a forum, a convention or whatever, what essentially it is about is excluding one side: the crucial side of the agenda. The historical model to return to in this case is the Supreme Soviet’s democracy arrangements. It is a parody of democracy: government by the people, but the people. You say that more than rhetoric is needed here, Mr President-in-Office of the Council. I agree, and that ‘more’ is to ask the question, ‘Is integration the solution or the problem?’"@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"without"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph