Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-06-08-Speech-3-016"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050608.3.3-016"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, Thomas Jefferson said in 1787, ‘a little rebellion now and then is a good thing’. Beyond the gloom and pessimism about Europe’s future, last week’s rebellion by our citizens could turn out to have some benefits. Member States are confronted with the outcome of their own duplicity. If you claim the credit for everything that goes right and blame Brussels for everything that goes wrong, then sooner or later your citizens will rumble you – and they have.
When the VGE 380 was rolled out onto the tarmac last summer, we all cheered. But it has features and a name that are scaring away potential passengers. Some complain there are too many foreigners aboard, others that the new French and German specifications for the engines have weakened it. But nobody is completely satisfied with a vehicle in which strategic decisions are taken without proper public debate.
That is a failing not just at EU level, but in our national debates too. For all our grand plans for transnational cooperation, we have failed to explain to people what we are doing at European level and why, and to address their fears about jobs, careers and a productive retirement in a fast-changing world. Europe is too secretive and too opaque. Too many decisions are still taken behind closed doors and without proper parliamentary scrutiny. Basic parliamentary prerogatives and formal opinions are ignored or dismissed, such as the opposition in this House to heavy-handed proposals on data retention or passenger data transfer. Is it any wonder that big projects like the Constitution are rejected, when even basic institutional respect is lacking?
The British Foreign Secretary has been accused of making funeral arrangements before the coroner has spoken, but he gave voice to what many are saying in private, that the Treaty in its current form is unlikely to survive. It would have been ideal to hear the opinion of all Member States. In future, any such ratification must be put to all European citizens at the same time. But these were votes to reject not a text, but the way our Union operates.
Mr Schmit, Mr Barroso, we do not blame you for getting us into this mess, but we look to you for leadership in getting us out. Of course, there is a limit to how much a small Member State or the Commission can do. A huge responsibility rests on the larger beasts in the European jungle for the economic and social ills plaguing the Union. But since the Franco-German motor is clearly kaput, we want to see you building a new one. More than ever, Europe needs leaders with a sense of purpose and vision, who can inspire our citizens to maximise their potential and opportunity. If not you, then who?
With or without this Constitution, you can improve the way the Union operates and communicates. Here are just three ways: the Council could and should be more open, legislating in public, respecting freedom of information; justice and home affairs policy could and should be decided by the normal Community method, as provided for in the existing treaties; the European Parliament could and should be given a real say on international agreements. Those three steps would help to rebuild confidence in the European project.
At the European Council, you need an answer from Chirac and Balkenende about whether this Constitution will ever be ratifiable in their countries and if not, what kind of text might be. We need a treaty for a Union of 27 Member States, but in the meantime there is much you can do to rebuild on the basis of the current treaties and restore public faith in the European project."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples