Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-11-29-Speech-3-028"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061129.9.3-028"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I shall try to deal quickly with the issues.
I would say to my good colleague, Mrs Sinnott, that the reason we have progressive disabilities legislation, the reason that we are putting huge resources into disability, the reason we have an Environmental Protection Agency, the reason we have far greater health policy, the reason we are able to support these things, is not because there is any difference between the 1937 Constitution – which treasures all the people and children of Ireland equally – and what we have today. It is because we have been able to make progress because Europe has progressed. I think these are great issues.
I am delighted to see Mr Allister here. His party has moved forward progressively. It has moved away from the past, even if not all of its members have, including himself. However, we are moving on, we are making progress. I will deal with my electorate and I wish you well in your February election, too.
I want to thank everybody for their welcome – I did not detect that from the last speaker, but from everybody else anyway!
I want to thank Mr Poettering for his remarks. The European Parliament’s participation in the IGC during the Irish Presidency was extremely important and constructive. The European Parliament was clearly very much part of it and it clearly should be involved in taking the process forward. I think that is what you requested, and you certainly have my support in that. I thank you for your remarks about the declaration in Berlin. I support you. Your issue about the reforms of Part I and the values and getting ourselves ready for the challenges in the future are all things that I readily agree with.
Mr Schulz spoke about the five priorities based on the future of Europe and the ratification process. Ireland would have preferred it if everyone had ratified it at the same time, as that would have resolved a lot of problems without all the debate. We have to remember that there are 16 or 17 countries that are committed to ratifying the Constitution: the majority of the parties, particularly the three large parties in our Parliament have clearly stated their support for it. We believe that there must be some clarity. Unlike other countries, because of our written Constitution, whatever happens we always have to have a referendum. We do not just want to be putting words out that we know will change in some format because whatever happens, it will be entered into our Constitution. We have to have certainty in that, but there is certainly no fear of us having referendums.
Mr Watson brought up the concerns of citizens and the global contract. The big issue for that is for countries to show their support. You mentioned the issues of JHA being consistent with the Treaties that are already there, dealing with issues of crime and the common foreign and security policy. The biggest way we can show the developing countries our support is through our commitment under the UN to ODA. That is what I try to practise, because you can talk all you like, but you have to be prepared to put your money into it. For us as a small country, getting to 0.7 per cent is the small matter of EUR 1.5 billion! That is a lot in our budget, but we are moving towards that fast, and we are doing that to help not only our own people but also the less well-of in various parts of the world. I agree that if Chancellor Merkel can get the balance and substance right, it would mean amendments. We accept that and we can move forward.
Mr Voggenhuber was right that a reflection of one and a half years has not brought us very far. I accept that point. However, neither have we gone back. We are here in a reflection period and we must find a way forward. Not everyone will agree, but I and 17 or 18 countries believe in the balance and substance of the constitutional treaty, with some amendments if it means accommodating France and the Netherlands – which we accept is the right thing to do. Ultimately we will have to do that and get the institutional balance right and find a way forward. It is not just some theoretical pro-European issue, it is to make the functioning of Europe correct for the future so that we can continue with our environmental and economic progress and our common foreign and security policy. That is why we negotiated a treaty. However, I accept your point: 13 months on is a long time, but there are still reasons for voting. We shall have to deal with those reasons. The reasons why we need a Union that can continually cater for new members – now 27 and in a few years’ time possibly 30 – and our new neighbourhood policy were outlined in the Nice and Amsterdam Treaties. We do not have the institutional changes and the balances that can cater for that. That was the whole project, and the European Parliament was as strong an advocate for that as anyone.
Mrs Zimmer asked about a common EU identity and social dialogue. From the time I entered political life in the 1972 referendum in Ireland I have always believed that social dialogue was absolutely essential to Ireland’s future. Ireland has succeeded and no longer has the high unemployment of 17 or 18% of the past, when the annual emigration equalled the entire labour market growth of the country; when our exports were in decline and economic growth was negative; when we had no money for the less well off in our society. That was when we did not have social dialogue. Economic performance and dealing with the agenda on competitiveness and social policy are mutual friends and they can work in harmony – they are not exclusive policies. It is when they work together.
With respect, I never quite understand when people are arguing the issue on Europe why we always forget all the positives. That applies to members of the European Council – I would accept that criticism – and I think it applies to Members of the European Parliament. However, look at what has been achieved because of the strength of Europe. Look at the equality agenda. Look at the health and safety agenda. Look at the welfare agenda. Look at the mobility of workers. Would any of these have been here if this institution had not been here, if Europe had not been here? Not a hope in hell! Europe has achieved this. So to talk against your own achievements is never a good idea, in my view. Europe has achieved all these things and the chance of our harmonising, getting stronger environmental laws, more cooperation and helping less developed countries – all these are European policies that never would have happened otherwise. Europe has pulled Ireland and other countries up and it has applied pressure, it has fined and prosecuted people. However, the fact is that the citizens have gained from every one of those issues."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Prime-Minister of Ireland"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples