Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-05-23-Speech-3-256"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070523.20.3-256"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I am very much obliged to those Members of Parliament who have spoken for their inspiring contributions. What I sense in this House – and I would not have expected it to be any other way – is an atmosphere of inspiration, one in which the European ideals are considered in the context of the Europe of the 21st century.
This, of course, begs the question: what
the best way? Then you face the problem that we in Europe have Member States that have approved the constitution, those that have said ‘no’ and countries that have not yet taken a decision. This is the reality.
The last few years – the time of reflection – have not been in vain. I think that we have given answers to the citizens. We have said, let us work on the concrete projects in Europe. Make it clear to the people how important Europe is, so that Europe can return to people’s minds and hearts.
We have spoken about the process of enlargement. Let us turn this into a credible project. Let us carefully consider the criteria that have already been tightened up. That too is a question of the European project being credible.
We have said, let us tackle those topics that are so critical to the people in Europe. Namely energy and the climate. This is also why, together with Tony Blair, I have written a letter to my colleagues to say that we want the topics of climate and energy high on the European agenda. They are also matters of concern to you. We cannot do without one another. Let Europe prove what it can do.
That is when the period of reflection will come into its own. It should not be the case though, and I would like to make this quite clear, that at the end of the period of reflection, we end up with a climate in which one group is pitted against the other, in which the group of the 18 ratifying countries is pitted against those that said ‘no’. If we were to do this, then we will not resolve the situation.
It is my sincere conviction that it is possible to find solutions. Let us do this in a way with which we can all identify. This is, as I see it, the method of constitutional amendment, as we have done before, a viable route, because it is possible to embrace the sound elements from the Constitutional Treaty. Because those elements of an institutional compromise should play a key role. Because we cannot leave things the way they are.
Needless to say, we have to look at the various sections. Mrs Buitenweg made a comment on the Charter of fundamental rights, which is very sensitive here, and I can see why. If you talk about the Charter, then you can join our camp, because we are equally persuaded of the importance of fundamental rights. Except, what do we see? The question is whether all of this should be included in such a Constitution, or if it would be possible to refer to it using different means. This is the point.
So let us discuss the significance of fundamental rights, whilst considering the limitations of a Constitution. This is a debate that I should like to enter into with you.
It is my sincere conviction that we must make haste. My dream and ideal is that in June, we will be able to say that we will draw up a well-defined time table to resolve the issues. We would like to resolve them within a few years, and that is possible only if we join forces.
This is why I was so moved by what Mr Daul said – and this may well be what matters more than anything – about the values that have made Europe what it is today, the values which Europe stands for and the values for which we shoulder responsibility worldwide: peace, security, democracy, human rights and solidarity. These have made Europe strong, and that is what we need at the moment. This is perhaps where I should like pick up on what Mr Schulz said earlier.
I have made suggestions to this effect in my presentation. I argued against a Constitution, but in favour of an amending treaty instead, taking into account the role of the national parliaments without impinging on the role of the European Parliament, because your role is indispensable in Europe. I have mentioned these elements, and we must be able to act in unison, to consider what unites us rather than what divides us; that is where Mr Schulz is quite right, and we have to want to strike compromises. This applies to us all.
If we manage to pull it off, then we can make progress; that is my plan. I am also doing this with the feeling and conviction that we must make sure we only talk about a ‘no’ of two countries, because feelings among citizens and concerns are a reality. We must answer the questions that are around today. If we do this from a position that we want to find a common solution, draw short-term conclusions, check what is needed for this, and I have made a contribution to this, then it is possible to find solutions.
Indeed, what is unacceptable in a time of further globalisation, of social issues, is that we would be unable to find answers, because the division that was would simply carry on.
I think we owe it to the founding fathers of the European Union, Adenauer, Schuman, de Gasperi, Monnet and all the others, to hold steadfast to the ideals, and, as Mr Daul said, to keep the value of Europe, the European dream in mind at all times – not to overlook public concerns, but do what has to be done. If we draw these conclusions in June, then we will have achieved a great deal. For this, we need each other, and I also think that we owe it to the ideals that we seek to achieve.
Mr President, I was inspired by what you said. I will take your words to the Netherlands, and then we shall all have the task of finding solutions quickly, taking into consideration each other's positions, but always considering what we need to keep at the forefront of our minds, namely working on a European dream in the 21st century.
It really is very good that we should meet again; I well remember our previous meetings. It was really great to discuss things with you, it is so still today, and for that I am very grateful.
He spoke about the international aspects, the foreign aspects of the European Union, and I can do no other than endorse what he said. We live in a world in which changes are on the way – in China, India and the United States. We see changes in the areas of security, the fight against terrorism, the climate issue and energy. Europe can do better, work more effectively and speak more with one voice in all these areas.
Discussion of what the High Representative is to be called can wait until later, but what is important is the content and the message of the values Mr Daul mentioned. Let us propagate these, and let us do it together. These are issues that say something about our ideals involving the Europe of the future, not only here and on our own continent, but worldwide. Mr Daul made a plea for this, which strikes me as appropriate and necessary.
This brings me to the point Mr Watson made, namely that of energy. I should like to repeat what he said in this connection: we cannot do without one another. If Europe does not speak with one voice, we will face big problems. Energy is not just a matter of its presence, energy is also related to stability. Stability involving the supply of energy has an economic, social and ecological dimension. We need each other on this level too.
Listening carefully to what Mr Watson said, which is what I did, I can see a connection between the European ideals, the way in which Europe presents itself to the outside world, foreign policy, and the way in which it tackles specific issues which we advocate, such as the energy issue to which he referred. If you think about this long and hard, then Europe faces a huge task.
I liked the comparison that Mr Watson drew with the Netherlands of the 17th century, the Golden Century. An era in which the Netherlands did extremely well worldwide. Did all of this come out of nothing? No, it did not. In order to achieve this, we had to take action. We needed to sail the seven seas and have a sound administrative structure in place. Did this happen overnight? No, indeed not; it took time. What we did have, though, is determination in terms of wanting to achieve certain things together.
If this is what you refer to, then you have touched a soft spot in me, because it brings up the question: how do we give shape to the Europe of the 21st century? How can we ensure that Europe can perform in the areas of economy, energy and global relations? The key question today is: are the existing relations adequate? No, they are not. The Treaty of Nice is not enough to meet the requirements of the 21st century."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"is"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples