Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-16-Speech-2-030"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060516.4.2-030"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Vice-President Wallström, ladies and gentlemen, the fundamental question is this: what do the public want from political institutions? What they want is solutions to problems, and, from time to time, a vision – yes, that as well – and they want their problems, fears and worries to be taken seriously.
What the results from France and the Netherlands show is that this European Union of ours has not, so far, been successful enough in doing this. This rejection did not, however, plunge the European Union into a crisis; rather, it did no more than make it clear that the EU was already in one. According to Eurobarometer, even in Germany, only 38% of the public believe that their vote counts, so we need to make an active effort to seek the public’s approval for the EU, and now we have the chance to do it, for the fact is that the first step is very simple. We have to make it credible that the ‘no’ uttered by two countries in the EU is actually accepted as such.
What is worse than a ‘no’ vote is a ‘no’ vote that politicians do not take seriously. This does not mean that the constitution is dead, but it is a reason why we cannot vote again on a constitutional treaty in unamended form. The Constitution must be revised, with its component parts kept separate from specific policies. The simple fact is that it has to be made clear that, for example, the EU’s goals and values are not the same thing as policies on fisheries or electronic waste.
As for argument – day-to-day political argument – well, we need that too. Most of it has to do with the sectoral policies; if the whole debate around the services directive showed anything, it was, no doubt, that the public are actually interested in what goes on in this place. Arguments are the salt in the democratic soup; many in this House will be aware that I was not happy with what happened to the services directive, but I was pleased that 30 000 people were here in Strasbourg demonstrating, for that is real dialogue with the citizens, in comparison with which Plan D has something artificial about it.
It must also be clear to us that we have to hold fast to the separation of the powers, and that is why I want to spell it out to the House that anyone who promises, here in this House today, that national models of the welfare state will be transposed to the European level, is trying to hoodwink the public. We have neither the money, nor the legal basis, nor the powers to do that. If you want to make social policy – and it is quite acceptable that you should – then please use the national parliaments as your base for doing it. If we make empty promises, then the 20 million unemployed will be given no hope, and everyone else will make us aware of how they have become more – rather than less – disenchanted with Europe.
So I urge you that what we should be doing is to democratise the European Union’s powers, perform its functions well and make sure, at the next European elections, that we get a Europe-wide referendum on the revised text of the Constitution, and also elect the President of the Commission from among our own number."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples