Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-05-23-Speech-3-251"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070523.20.3-251"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, my group would also like to extend a warm welcome to Prime Minister Balkenende and thank him for accepting the invitation. In the Netherlands, the new Cabinet has just spent 100 days talking with the public, but it was 500 days ago that we last heard anything said about Europe. Just as well that this came to an end. The question is, of course, whether people have actually been listened to.
You seem to have been shopping selectively. With regard to your interpretation of the ‘no’, you only mention those objections to the Constitution that lead to a less ambitious Treaty, in other words, to fewer changes. This is a very bizarre way of thinking. Do you really believe that people have voted against the European Treaty because they are so satisfied with the current European Union? Do you also think that the flag and the national anthem really are the biggest problem?
According to 80%, not least of the ‘no’ voters in the Netherlands, the negotiations should be seized as an opportunity to carry out more thorough reforms and to continue the democratisation process in Europe. Sixty-eight percent of the people also want a real European foreign and security policy.
There is no mention of this more far-reaching democratic ambition anywhere in your proposals, though. You also want to scrap the Foreign Affairs Minister. You only want less, and you present this as an inevitable development.
This situation is comparable to that of an unsatisfied customer who goes back to the bicycle shop and says ‘fine, you can swap the bike, but only for a scooter’. I will not settle for a scooter, though; all I want is a better bike. One with brakes, that would do. After all, not all decisions should be taken in Brussels, and it is a good thing to demarcate national and European powers better. Brakes only make sense, though, if there are pedals.
You claim that people want more control, but this seems to be in conflict with your commitment to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. You did not make reference to it on this occasion, but I have a hard copy somewhere of the debate in the Dutch national parliament, when you said: ‘In the case of the Treaty being changed without any constitutional pretensions, the text of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights should not need to be included in its entirety’. Surely this is a bizarre interpretation of the ‘no’! There will not be many people who have voted against the constitution because this would have entitled them to more rights.
Unlike the ECHR, the European Charter of Fundamental Rights also contains social fundamental rights, which can put up a barrier against anti-social interventions from Brussels in the welfare state. Now that would be a brake that I would think worth having on my bicycle.
Finally, your real reason to remove the flag, the constitution, the Charter of fundamental rights and the anthems, is purely domestic. If the Treaty no longer shows any signs of a constitution, then you will be able to avoid a referendum in the Netherlands. We might be able to agree to disagree then. My party is quite happy to abandon the idea of a national referendum if you fear that in future, you will end up feeling isolated again. Perhaps we might get a European referendum instead, though, in which case you would not be isolated, but would instead, be doing what twenty-first century democracy requires of you. I would welcome your comments on this."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples