Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-18-Speech-3-034"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030618.4.3-034"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I believe that we all feel a certain satisfaction when we are part of an historic moment, whatever the context, and this is definitely an historic moment for, irrespective of different positions and disagreement, which we have heard expressed again today, I fully agree with what Mr Méndez de Vigo said. For the first time in history, we have succeeded in reconciling sovereignty with the protection of rights, leaving behind the concept of
we have known and launching Europe towards future horizons whose limits will be for us alone to decide. Of course, there may well be a few minor flaws but, seeing as the preamble contained an extensive discourse with reference, not least, to Thucydides, I would like to draw the House’s attention to the principle of the ancient Greek philosophers: history is never completely flawless because, if it were, it would not be perpetuated.
I will not comment on the text of the Treaty but limit myself to one warning and one regret. One point on which we as Parliament must take care is the requirement of unanimity in decision-making. We have achieved a text which, without a doubt, launches the Community method and spirit towards new horizons and, given that the Constitutional Treaty with its many facets is a key card for us to play if we are to achieve greater European competitiveness, the requirement of unanimous decision-making in a 15-Member State Europe – as we have seen – has already, at many sensitive times and in many sensitive cases, created difficult, not to say impossible situations. Well then, opting to preserve unanimity in a 25-Member State Union may have very serious consequences, especially if the decisions hinge on economic or tax proposals. I fear that if we were to take the option of establishing a right of veto, which is still on the cards, we would ultimately be shooting ourselves in the foot, for this would ultimately reduce the European area – which is, in fact, the largest or one of the largest common markets in the world – to a mere collection of national interests. We must take care to avoid this.
The regret is that I listened, with some surprise, to the debate held on the preamble to decide whether our religious, or rather Christian, heritage should be included among the factors making up our common identity. I would point out that the identity of Europe has been wrought from an experience of painful emancipation that has not, in our history, been free of tragic events, although they have, in any case, always led to liberation and growth. I feel that, from a spiritual point of view, this is one of the elements which contribute to the greatness of Christianity and make it a universal point of reference. I would like there to be further debate on this."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples