Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-11-29-Speech-3-054"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061129.9.3-054"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, in response to all of the speakers, there is obviously a great divergence of views and opinions, but this Parliament, by an enormous majority, did ratify and support the Constitution. However, I want to thank all the Members for their points of view. It is useful for me as a Member of the European Council, and having been so involved in the Constitution, just to hear those points. I think the exchange from that has been very valuable. It gives me a perspective that I suppose is difficult to get from this remove.
As all of those Members have said, it is important we listen to the people. It is not always possible to listen to all the people, but in that case you can listen to their elected representatives. This has afforded me the opportunity of explaining the rationale underpinning so many views on the Constitution. I have also had an opportunity to give my views.
I think that the Constitution is a very balanced and fair document. I think it is an equitable document. Of course it is made up of compromises. When you are trying to get 25 countries – as it was then – to agree, there have to be compromises in the text. It was not just a quick question of any one person saying ‘this is the position’. Things change. As I went around Europe there were many issues that were totally different in different countries, that caught the public imagination, that created a lot of difficulties in the media, and then people had to change or deliberate on what wording they could agree on, so it is not perfect insofar as it is just written with no ambiguities whatever, but it has been negotiated.
There are those who believe that perhaps it was written in isolation – I think there were some comments about that. I understand that after a few years, but I would remind Members of Parliament that the Convention had a very active group from Parliament. They worked very hard. They were the representatives of the people, they were elected by the people, they were answerable to the people and I think the governments are too. You cannot have a Constitution that is negotiated by 500 million people. You have to have their representatives doing it, and I think they did a good job on it. So sometimes that is the issue about legitimacy and democracy.
I noted the points about fighting for the issues of human rights and values, and that this is what people are about, and not crime and drugs. The people I meet are far more concerned with both issues. They want to see that the rule of law, the rule of courts, the legal system protects everybody equally. However, they also want to see that those who are involved in criminality across borders and those who are engaged in criminal activity are dealt with. So if you are a supporter of human rights, then you are obviously a supporter of the Constitution, because the Charter for Fundamental Rights is the first time in Europe that we have put all these things into the Constitution so I think you should definitely be a strong advocate of the Constitution.
I think what is necessary for us now is not to try to renegotiate everything. With the German Presidency coming up, the Chancellor has clearly stated that she will set up a small group of officials to deal with a small group of officials in every country to identify where there are differences or difficulties. In my view, that should count 90% of the Constitution out. The focus and the concentration and effort will then be on the remaining 10%.
My colleague from Ireland, Mr De Rossa, made a very fair point, one I have made several times, and it happened in the case of Ireland and Nice. The issue then is to try to get protocols to deal with the issues, that is the sensible thing: not throwing away parts of the Constitution that have been agreed upon by Parliament, by the Council, by 18 countries across Europe, but to try to find and accommodate the difficulties and analyse what the difficulties are in those countries which have voted ‘no’, or perhaps others which have reservations. That is not an impossible task. It has been done already in the countries where the Constitution was lost. As stated earlier on, there were opinion polls looking into what those issues were and trying to deal with those issues. I think that is possible. If those issues are looked at in the IGC or the Council, it should be possible. I do not think it should take a long time.
I would just ask Parliament, and hope – as I will try to do in Council – to keep supporting the Constitution with the balanced view that we have to deal with a small number of outstanding issues as regards some countries and perhaps as regards countries that have declared their positions recently because of changes in governments. We should try to deal with that. If we can do that, then with the reason and purpose and the whole desire to have a European Constitution – if that is what it is called; that is not something I get too excited about – we can move forward collectively to do that. I really believe it is possible."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples