Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-31-Speech-3-036"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060531.9.3-036"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, rest assured, I have to face Mr Vanhecke’s cohorts in my own parliament too. I notice that there is, in actual fact, little difference between what he says here and what he says in Belgium. To him, Europe is just the church tower and nothing else. That is why he does not tolerate any further consideration being given to Europe, for he is interested only in what happens in a 5-mile radius around him.
Indeed, the most important thing, Mr President, is that, during the Council on 15 and 16 June, which will be a very important Council, we must try to decide together how to continue the process. Once again, I have nothing against extending the period of reflection. Nonetheless, I am going to ask that consideration also be given to Declaration 30 annexed to the Constitution, which was adopted by the Convention, by the European Council and by the countries of the European Union who ratified the Treaty. That does not in any way mean that we carry on regardless whatever the majority of French people or the majority of Dutch people think. That is the reason why I am suggesting to you a second strategy, alongside the continuation of the ratification process.
It is true, indeed, that we have to respond to the expectations of citizens and to their fears. We cannot do that by saying to them, ‘There you are, we have a Constitution’. Simply waking up one morning to hear that they have a Constitution is not going to reassure them. That is not how things work. We are the ones, above all, who need the Constitution to make progress on a certain number of things. We also need tangible policies and something which, in my opinion, is lacking most of all in the European Union, socio-economic governance. Why do you not understand that a monetary Union without a common socio-economic policy and strategy is utterly preposterous!
That might already be, as I hope, the conclusion of the Council on 15 and 16 June. We would have made a step forward and not only for ourselves or for the institutions.
Perhaps I should plead guilty, Mr Poettering. At the beginning, with the Laeken declaration, we perhaps used the word 'constitution' a bit hastily for the time. The fact remains that now we must recognise that we need a twofold strategy. There is the Constitution, which we shall perhaps have to renegotiate to achieve unanimity. There is also a credible socio-economic policy that you, the Council and Parliament, have to put in place without delay, because that is what people want. Therein lies the response to globalisation. Europe is not the source of globalisation; no, it is the right answer to globalisation and that is the message that we have not yet adequately developed and put across to the nations of Europe.
I, for my part, have a different opinion of Europe. I believe that Europe has a destiny and that it must follow that destiny. Above all, I believe that the history of Europe moves in a certain direction, and that is something that we must never forget. It is in fact history that teaches us what we should do, even if our points of view are sometimes very different. There are those who believe that things are moving too quickly or too slowly, or that other concepts should be developed. Yet, one thing remains clear, and that is history. History teaches us that, when we were divided and inward-looking, Europe was in crisis, a war was being fought, civil wars were constantly being fought.
I will therefore ask those who now claim that they do not want to enlarge Europe, to include the Balkans, for example: why should these countries be denied stability? If, in fact, they do not join the European Union, we know full well that, in the next two or three years, this part of the world will once again be in the grip of violence and war.
Naturally, the countries concerned must meet all of the conditions. However, those who claim today
that these countries and these populations cannot join, that there are borders, are actually telling them that they do not want them to enjoy what we have been enjoying for 50 years now in the European Union: peace, stability and well-being. That is something that we cannot accept. That is the selfishness that was being expressed a short while ago, and we must not give into it now. That is the current challenge, not the issue of Turkey.
Is it not the case that the only reason why Turkey is being used here is as a pretext for displaying selfishness? Turkey is of no consequence to them. Whether Turkey joins or not, all that matters is that they can demonstrate that it would be best if we were all to end up self-sufficient. That is what the last speeches we heard, including the speech by Mr Farage, who said all kinds of things a moment ago, came down to in practice. I can tell you, Mr Farage
I can tell you that I am saying
thing in the Council as here in Parliament. That is absolutely necessary, because you cannot say one thing in the European Council and then the opposite in London or another city in Europe. I try to give exactly the same message to both the Council and Parliament."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"exactly the same"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples