Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-01-Speech-2-018"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030701.1.2-018"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, the Athens Accession Treaty signed on 16 April was a historic landmark in the history of Europe. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall my party has been consistent and determined in its support for the enlargement of the Union, and we unreservedly welcome the positive results of the referendums that have already taken place in many of the accession states.
However, we are less supportive of the presidency in other respects. On Iraq, the damage to transatlantic relations arising from the 'gang of four' summit, attended by Germany, France, Belgium and Luxembourg, also severely undermined NATO. At a time when many of our citizens in Europe are facing economic stagnation and deflation, there has sadly been little progress in advancing the Lisbon agenda of economic structural reform. Instead, we have seen that we again prefer to devote most of our time to institutional reform, whilst persuading ourselves that this is the sort of progress that European citizens are crying out for. I doubt it. The presidency conclusions begin by stating that the Convention was successful in bringing our Union closer to its citizens, strengthening our Union's democratic character, enhancing our Union's ability to act as a coherent and unified force in the international system. I fear that such warm, optimistic rhetoric is little more than that.
The results of the Convention's work have again shown the inability of a European political elite to reflect the real concerns of the people of Europe. We are asked to believe that what our citizens really want is an EU with a legal personality, a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights, the removal of the pillar structure, an extension of majority voting, an EU president and foreign minister, common asylum and immigration policies and a European public prosecutor – in short, that people want a fundamental change in the relationship between the Union and its people.
The British Prime Minister's now infamous view that the Convention is merely a tidying-up exercise has attracted derision from Eurosceptic and Europhile alike. I repeat today that the people of the United Kingdom have a right to a referendum on this constitutional treaty, just as other Member States intend to do. If the governments of the Union really wish to bring their citizens closer to the Union, then it is in their interests and those of their people to ensure that referendums are held in order to legitimise what is being proposed in their name.
My party believes in a different kind of Europe: a Europe where the nation state is the fundamental building block of cooperation and intergovernmentalism is preferable to one-way integration, which I fear is being reinforced by the Convention. It is a different kind of Europe to the integrationist agenda, but it is no less European for that. I wish the Convention had chosen this route. I hope that the governments of the Union look afresh at the results of the Convention when the Intergovernmental Conference begins its work.
Finally, I noted that the presidency adds that the accession countries will participate in the Intergovernmental Conference on an equal footing with current Member States. I hope that means that they will be given the same voting rights as Member States. It would be outrageous for the IGC to conclude a new constitutional structure for Europe just weeks in advance of accession and try to present this as a done deal. No democrat should put up with that."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples