Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-06-14-Speech-3-009"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060614.2.3-009"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the speeches by the President-in-Office of the Council and the President of the Commission have conveyed the good impression that the European Constitution is not dead but very much alive, and that there is the common will to bring this important European project to a successful conclusion. I believe that this Parliament can support wholeheartedly what we have heard.
It must be clear by the end of this debate that Europe is not just Brussels; Europe is all of us, wherever we live in our countries, regions and localities – and if we succeed in this, we have achieved real progress.
The Austrian Presidency has revived the constitutional debate. That is a good thing, and it has been hard work, but we can see that all parties are now back round the table and deliberating together how to proceed. I believe that many issues on the agenda at the Summit – from energy policy to development policy to the common foreign policy – and many other issues would be easier to resolve with the new Constitutional Treaty than with the old Treaty of Nice. For this reason, the constitutional debate we need is not an institutional, but an eminently political debate. We must also inform people of the costs of not having the Constitution. In our resolution, we ask the Commission President to present the people with a study showing everything we stand to lose by not having this new Treaty.
This lunchtime, plenary will vote on a resolution containing a number of demands and also ideas for the next period of reflection and the further course of the constitutional process. The number one message to the Summit is that we once again need a declaration from all 25 Member States that they support this common project and are also willing to continue the ratification process. This declaration is necessary because other public statements have occasionally given the impression that the Member States concerned are distancing themselves from their commitments, and that would be a real crisis of confidence and a breakdown in loyalty among the Member States. I hope that the Summit can send out this message.
The second point I should like to raise is that we would caution against breaking up this global compromise and cherry-picking or dismantling this Treaty. That would weaken the project of a political Europe and endanger cohesion.
Thirdly, it is music to our ears that the Summit is to decide on a timetable. The EU has always been successful when it has been working towards a clear objective and a fixed date. That was the case with the internal market and with the euro, and must now also be the case with the Constitution. The dates 2007 and 2009 have been mentioned: these tally with those in our resolution, and we need this Treaty for the European elections. I would caution against going into the European elections with this crisis unresolved – that would strengthen Europe’s opponents and increase Euroscepticsm, perhaps even reduce voter turnout once again. We need to have succeeded by 2009.
We believe that specific dialogue is needed with the two countries that voted ‘no’ in their referendums. It remains an open question how and under what circumstances these two countries could continue the ratification process. We cannot get around this point. The moment of truth will come following the elections in the Netherlands and France, if not sooner, and their partners need to know what the specific problem is with the Treaty. The ‘no’ was very vague, and it is not much use to us. We need a specific proposal for how we can help and what we should do. It is about time we saw a commitment to examining this issue more closely – it cannot be resolved by others; no one else can hold the debate in their place. The effort needs to come from the two countries themselves, but they do need to be asked.
My next point is that the period of reflection is being extended, and indeed all parties should be committed to participating in this reflection. Some countries are still silent and are not becoming involved. That is bad for everyone, because these countries, too, still need to ratify the Constitution, and if the population does not know what it is letting itself in for and what is in store for it, that is bad for all the others.
We believe that public involvement should be increased. Commissioner Wallström’s Plan D is good. We, too, must do our bit towards ensuring that even more money is made available. We simply need resources, and we also need cross-border projects rather than just national debates. We must continue to promote this element – from citizen to citizen, from Union citizen to Union citizen.
We have had a very successful interparliamentary forum. This process requires the participation of not only the executive, but also the legislative bodies, the parliaments, and we, Parliament, are willing to continue this interparliamentary dialogue."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples