Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-01-17-Speech-3-022"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070117.3.3-022"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, Mrs Merkel, Mr President of the Commission, what I have to say to you, Madam Federal Chancellor, is that we in the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance share your youthful romanticism and your youthful love for Europe. That is what we have in common, and no further word needs to be written on the subject, but we do also have a certain impatience, and that baffles me. What then? We love Europe, and we want to shape it. On the subject of tolerance, you should have quoted not only Voltaire, but also been magnanimous enough to quote Rosa Luxemburg, who said the same thing and is also part of our shared European history. That is the way of life; I love Voltaire, and I love Rosa Luxemburg, and in an age of women we are also allowed to quote women.
You talked about the challenges Europe faces in the Middle East. Right, but how do we deal with them? I will give you a tip: here in this House …
You have enough problems with your CSU, so just shut up! I have a tip for you, too: Mrs Pauli is right.
Another woman: women are wrecking everything these days.
I wanted, however, to talk about the Middle East: here in this House, we adopted a resolution to the effect that we needed a major regional conference. That sort of thing takes preparation, of course. That is why – since the European Union started out with coal and steel – it might perhaps have been a good idea for Europe to set in motion a big regional conference on water, for it is water that all these states have in common, that Israel has in common with Palestine and Syria with Israel. If we were to manage, by way of a specific project, to get these countries to trust one another, I do think that would be the first step towards longer-term understanding in the region.
You said we should join with America in taking action; by all means, but let us not be tied down in the way they are in America, with innovations constrained by undemocratic patent laws. That sort of thing destroys diversity, so not everything needs to be learned from America.
You then had something to say about the climate problem, but let us not be dependent on California where climate is concerned. Forget Bush! Let us go to California and see what progress can be made on the climate front.
Martin, there are some conservatives who do something intelligent.
It is because Mr Daul mentioned the subject that I should also like to add that it is diversity, too, that leads me to dream of diversity during a Presidency, and so I close my eyes and imagine Mr Daul having to deliver a speech in 2008, when a woman, as President of France, will stand before this House and restore this diversity. It will be wonderful, and I am dreaming of how you and Segolène Royal will go about it, hand in hand and cheek by cheek, in Berlin or in Paris. In Europe, a new era has begun, with diversity and more women – wonderful, tremendous!
I was talking about climate, not about the death penalty.
Finally, you want to foster talent. In that case, you also need to consider the way in which German schools, and others, do that. The German school system does not foster talent; it destroys it. That is what we have learned from Europe.
To sum up, Madam Federal Chancellor, we are of one mind …
Darling, shut up!
We are of one mind where Europe is concerned, but there will inevitably be argument about how we achieve what we want.
That was my thought for Sunday. That is political stuff rather than a comedy performance. Just as you, in Germany, made the right choice in Mrs Merkel, it is a purely political statement when I say that those in France who are backing Segolène Royal are right. This is not an act, but deep and serious politics.
Let me now turn to the points that you made. Yes, the constitutional process needs to be driven forward – a wonderful idea, but how to do it? Earlier on, our good friend Mr Barroso said that Nice is not enough. It is not just that Nice is not enough; we do not want an intergovernmental conference of the kind that made Nice such a dreadful result. If you think, then, that the constitutional process can again be restarted in the darkened rooms of an intergovernmental conference, then the people of Europe will turn their backs.
What we need is public debate, a Convention, with votes. The Sherpa policy, the period of reflection, is over. I can tell you everything that the governments think; when it comes to the constitutional process, the last word was said long ago. How are we to compel all the governments? How are we to compel the diplomats to arrive at their compromises in public rather than in a darkened room? That, at the end of the German Presidency, will be your challenge.
Who says, too, that it was the Convention that created these problems for us? It was the Convention that adopted the first and second parts, then along came the governments and – in Thessaloniki – obliged us to accept the third – and then the Convention had to spend two or three weeks sorting things out. It is the inter-governmental votes that are always the problem in the Constitution, and that is why we do not want them."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"(Applause and interruptions)"1
"(Interruption by Mr Ferber)"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples