Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-24-Speech-3-030"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030924.1.3-030"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, in ten days' time yet another Intergovernmental Conference will get under way. The European Union seems to be in a state of permanent IGC. Over the last 16 years we have had the Single European Act, the Maastricht Treaty, the Amsterdam Treaty and, more recently, the Nice Treaty. In each case there has been an inevitable process of one-way integration, a sense that the European Union can only be successful if it acquires more and more power. And yet the peoples of Europe meanwhile have been increasingly registering their disillusionment with the European political process, through record low turnouts in European elections. There is a dilemma here for us and cause for concern.
This IGC is leading to something quite different from past treaties. It will seek for the first time to create a constitution for the European Union. The draft constitutional Treaty increases the centralising and integrating agenda which has been the hallmark of European development in recent years. We should be going back to first principles.
At Laeken, the Heads of State and Government called for better and clearer definitions of the EU's competences, simplification of legal instruments, greater democracy, greater transparency and efficiency and for European institutions to be brought closer to the citizens. It is all a far cry from what the Convention has proposed; and now we are being asked to ensure that the IGC does not undermine the Convention in any way. It is back to that same old message: Europe must deepen its integration or risk going backwards. It is time for a reality check and perhaps Sweden warned us of that.
The European Union is in real danger of moving way ahead of what the people of Europe want. For those like me and my party, who believe in membership of the European Union and in a Europe of nation states cooperating closely together, this rush to integration that is represented in the Convention paper risks a backlash from the electorate. I fear that Europe could be facing a crisis of legitimacy. First we were told by the British Government that there was no need for a constitution. Now in Britain we are told such a constitution is essential. Next we are told that the IGC was a mere tidying-up exercise. Then Mr Blair in the UK started signalling furiously that there were redline issues for him in the IGC – on tax, on defence and social security. But according to reports published over the weekend he has sold out on these as well.
My party has a simple and democratic answer to the twisting and tortured approach of the Prime Minister and his government to the IGC, and that is to give the British people a referendum. Let them decide whether this further leap forward towards a federal Europe is in fact what they want. If a referendum is good enough for the peoples of Ireland, Spain and other nations, then I believe it is good enough for the people of the United Kingdom and polls indicate that 80% of people in the UK want it.
The IGC will debate a fundamental shift in the power balance between nation states and the institutions of the European Union. I fear that railroading through a constitutional change of such magnitude at such a late stage in the enlargement process could lead to further disaffection and disillusionment amongst the people of the accession states and of the current 15.
Finally, we in this Parliament have a duty to represent the interests of our electors. By supporting the motion for a resolution in its unamended form we send a signal that the political élite knows what is best for our electors. That is a dangerous message in election year."@en1
|
lpv:spokenAs | |
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples