Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-10-Speech-3-037"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040310.1.3-037"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President. I want to add to the remarks made by Mr Roche in what has been a very interesting debate.
Perhaps it is most appropriate for me to begin by thanking Mr Brok for reminding the House about the basic reality that the healthy divisions in modern Europe are on issues and – contrary to what is represented in some parts of politics and the press – not between big and small. This is a fundamental point, and understanding it means understanding that it is the equitable inclusion and representative rights of countries of large, medium and small size which makes this a Union and makes the Union a stable, developing, 50-year success, in place of centuries of grand diplomacy by grand governments, which ended repeatedly in terrible grief and war. On an occasion like this it is as well to remind ourselves of those basics, as Mr Brok did.
Secondly, there were interesting references to the Lisbon strategy which, we must recall, was unanimously agreed by Member States to secure the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010. There can never have been a more devout aspiration. It is interesting to heed what Mr Wurtz, Mr Collins, Mr Ferber, Mr Karas and Mrs Doyle had to say on the issue. Since we are all engaged in supporting the Lisbon strategy – maybe with differing degrees of enthusiasm – success in achieving such a knowledge-based, dynamic and competitive economy is not going to be propelled by hesitancy in the further development of the single market, by false economies with reduced public and private sector investment, or by a ceiling on the financial perspectives which disables European Union engagement in research and development, regional development and efforts to combat poverty and under-development throughout the world.
I should like to offer a quick comment on the points made by Mr Poettering and Mr Barón Crespo, with a degree of elegant nuance from both gentlemen, on the fact that it would be wise to take account of the results of the European Parliament elections in the nomination of the President of the Commission in future. No-one seriously democratic could turn their back on such an idea, but nevertheless it is necessary to be careful because, if the impression was ever given that partisan reasons determined the appointment, that would reverberate over five years in Parliament, in the Commission, in the Council and more widely. The consequences would be divisive, destabilising and disadvantageous for the Union. Neither real democratic accountability nor legitimacy would be served by such a prospect and I am certain that nobody advocates taking proper account of the result of the elections is in any sense advocating partisan predetermination of the political alignment of the President of the Commission.
I would like to mention what I consider to be the curiosity of the debate. It was a remark from Mr Bonde, who called on the presidency to use the Brussels European Council to require a process for national decision-making on the constitution. That was somewhat paradoxical from an honourable Member, whom I think of as an evangelist for European fragmentation, especially since, if the advice he offered was followed, it would constitute the most massive act of superordinate centralisation in the history of the Union. I am certain he will forgive me if I say, as a great enthusiast for subsidiarity, that not for the first time I have to disagree with him on his proposal.
A final point, which I cannot resist making – Mr Evans will not be surprised by this. I did not in any sense concede the case for democratic legitimacy. Indeed, as I am sure Mr Evans will acknowledge, it is a fundamental belief of mine. Taking a completely detached view of internal United Kingdom affairs, which befits a Commissioner, I have got a certain divergence from him on the issue of a referendum on the constitution for a basic and simple reason. As I understand it, in the United Kingdom referenda take place when a proposal is made for a change in the system of government, whether it involves devolution or the decision to have elected mayors, or in relation to a number of comparable issues. The proposed constitution does not change the system of government in the United Kingdom. I also recall that the only precedent for the party of which Mr Evans is a distinguished representative providing a referendum was on the acute question of Sunday opening of public houses in Wales. For Mr Evans and me that is a fundamental issue of democratic rights and good governance but it does not bear comparison with the European constitution."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples