Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-05-23-Speech-3-259"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070523.20.3-259"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Prime Minister, I should first of all like to thank you for coming to Strasbourg.
The drafting of a new Treaty is in the interests of all of us. Now that France and the Netherlands have voted against the draft Constitution, we need, as has already been said, to look for another document, one with which all 27 countries can identify. It goes without saying that the Netherlands has a particular responsibility for making a huge effort in this respect. This is why it is useful that you have reminded us of the sensitivities surrounding this issue in the Netherlands, and that you have indicated the direction from which solutions are expected to arrive there.
Whilst the Netherlands is one of Europe’s co-founders and it is still pro-Europe, as is evident from any study, it does not want too much of Europe; it does not want Europe as a super state, or a constitutional set-up. The Netherlands likes to see things progress step by step, with due respect for subsidiarity of the Member States, a Europe that is more democratic and more decisive, and can therefore take majority decisions in more areas, and would like to see the enlargement criteria included in the Treaty.
It is also important to be reminded of the sensitivities and requirements of the other Member States. After all, 18 countries have already spoken out in favour of the draft document and value the progress that could have been made by means of the text that was available at the time. What matters now, is that we all come up with a fresh treaty document in a short space of time, which is in the interest of us all.
I was reminded of Paul-Henri Spaak’s words; he said: ‘Europe still consists solely of small countries. The only relevant distinction that remains is that some countries understand this, while others still refuse to acknowledge it.’ He said that in the 1950s. If this was the case back then, how much more relevant is it now, at a time of globalisation and internationalisation and with huge international issues, for example in the areas of immigration, energy, the environment and the fight against terrorism?
You described Europe as a rare and successful project. Indeed, it benefits the countries and the people. What we could do better together, we should. Anything that can be better regulated at national level should continue to be done at national level. The discussion is therefore not whether we are for or against Europe, it is about how we, in the short term, and involving all 27 Member States, can put the firmest possible foundation in place for a decisive, transparent Europe. The newspaper headlines read: Europe high on Prime Minister’s agenda. Congratulations on your level of commitment in this matter, both at home and in Europe."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples