Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-05-23-Speech-3-279"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070523.20.3-279"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I am very much indebted to the Members of Parliament for their comments further to what was said on the subject earlier.
Indeed, for too long, the debates were avoided and postponed. This is also the method by means of which we would like to say that national parliaments should be fully involved in what is happening in Europe. If there are points of criticism, they should be made.
We, for example, commented on the harmonisation of criminal law in the fight against counterfeit goods, something with which Commissioner Frattini has concerned himself. This is the sort of thing that should be open to discussion. This is how national parliaments can operate. In a wider sense, it is also a good thing that the question of subsidiarity is also addressed in national parliaments.
We should avoid a situation in which national parliaments and the European Parliament are pitted against one another. You have different powers and you play your own role in democracy. We should not see this as a sign of weakness, but rather as one of strength.
I should now like to turn to the criteria of services of general interest, a subject that Mr Van den Berg raised, along with other questions. It is my firm belief that we need clarification. We can discuss the way in which this is done. At the same time I can see Mr Maaten – we know each other well from the days when we both sat on the town council of Amstelveen, a town near Amsterdam – we go back a long time. I can understand very well what you are saying about the internal market. Of course, we must consider this consequence, but I, in turn, would say, if we discuss pension systems, pension funds, schools, let us closely examine how the principles of the internal market work there. We need clarification on this and we can obviously discuss the way this should be brought about in greater detail.
I understood very well that you talked about the importance of the Charter of fundamental rights. With good reason, because these fundamental rights belong to the values which Mr Daul mentioned. The question is only – and I would like to ask the same question – whether this should be included in a Constitution or if other methods could be applied. We need to find a solution for this. I have listened carefully to what you said and heard how important the topic is considered here.
It was a pleasure to hear Mr Dehaene speak. I value him for his involvement in bringing about the Constitutional Treaty and the Convention at the time, and we have found ourselves thrashing things out on many occasions. I am pleased that you feel for the position that we are in, when people say ‘no’ in a referendum. You have also indicated what is needed to resolve this situation. I would respond to that by saying that we must be a little more pragmatic, as Mr Maaten indicated, but obviously whilst retaining the ideals we all share.
If we can reach this solution, we will need to be mindful of the positions on either side. It is for precisely this reason that I repeat today that it is necessary that we look beyond the existing positions, that we should not take sides in Europe and that this, as I see it, can be done by means of an amending Treaty. I think it is possible to find solutions swiftly.
Many comments have been made, which I find difficult to address, although I have taken note of them all for personal use. I listened carefully to Mr Barón Crespo, who mentioned – and I should like to finish with this remark – national anthems. You referred to the Dutch Wilhelmus, our anthem which, it is true, contains the sentence: ‘
’.
The fact, though, that our anthem includes the line ‘I have always respected the King of Spain’ was related to the fact that Spain was involved in totally different things in the Netherlands, which culminated in a fight for independence and an 80-year war. This is now such a great time, a time in which we, for the first time in Europe’s history, are experiencing peace and security so that we can discuss things here in friendship.
I remember very well when I was in Madrid and visited the monastery where Philip II stayed. It was interesting, alongside our version of history, to hear the Spanish version. This is what is so good about Europe, that we can be different. Europe is a continent of diversity, but we also need unity. What is so special about Europe is that we boast this culture and religious pluriformity. This is what has made Europe strong.
I should like to start by clearing up a serious misunderstanding. I have heard a number of speakers, including Mrs Kaufmann and Mr Voggenhuber, talk about things such as the national anthem, the title of Foreign Affairs Minister and the flag, as if these were Dutch issues.
If we are talking about the ideals which we stand for, then I would say: let us use what has made Europe strong: human rights, democracy and working on security. Let us remain keenly aware that this should be a combined effort. Let us recognise the powers of national parliaments, let us get the European Parliament to do what needs to be done without any restrictions.
I always find it extremely stimulating to be here, because the European Parliament is the symbol of a united Europe. I believe it is a good thing that national politicians enter into debate with you. I experienced the debate with you today as extremely stimulating. Of course we do not need to see eye to eye on everything, and of course I can take criticism, but there is more that unites us than divides us.
If we are guided by the European dream, then we will undoubtedly be able to find solutions for the problems that have arisen. Together we can make a difference; together we can work on this solution.
This is not the case at all. I have indicated to you that the question is whether these symbols – that are wonderful in their own right and I have nothing against them – should be enshrined in a constitution. They are merely examples of the question whether we want to work on a constitution or would prefer to change the treaty. This is what this is about. Let us simply treasure our symbols, the question is only whether they should be included or not.
What I meant went a lot deeper, as I indicated. I have tried to give answers to concerns that are around. In my contribution, I indicated that we must think in terms of a treaty amendment, a test of subsidiarity by the national parliaments. I will say more about this in a moment. The kind of things that matter to us are majority decision-making in relation to the powers of Europe and the inclusion of the enlargement criteria. Seeing things only in terms of symbols would turn the Netherlands’ vision into a caricature.
I also paid close attention when the comment about nationalism was made. It was one that I did not understand. During the debates which we held in the Dutch Lower Chamber and after the ‘no’, I made it quite clear that our future is in Europe. A positive message about the meaning of Europe in everyone’s life. We cannot do without Europe. This has always been my message, and I have no desire, therefore, to be associated with purely nationalistic trends.
There was also the assertion that Europe is about nothing but economics. to which, you, Mr President, of course referred. Everyone says certain things. You referred to the actions of a young media person. I should like to remind you once again that when we held the presidency of the European Union, I repeatedly said that Europe is much more than a market and currency. Do you remember that I took the initiative to organise conferences on values in Europe? I then raised the question: what makes us Europeans? What are our common motives? What makes Europe this continent? It is my dear wish that the debate on European values be continued. We cannot do without this debate. So do not try to tell me that this is just about economics.
When we consider Europe’s future, we face the question as to what the challenge is we are facing. Mrs Martens from the Netherlands made a pertinent comment in this connection. What is actually the ideal situation? What are we trying to achieve together? This subsequently leads to a host of concrete questions which have also been raised on this platform.
I cannot address all of them. There are simply too many and we are also limited in time. Allow me to single out a few issues, though. One of the points that was made was the issue of powers and of subsidiarity. It is my firm belief that we must spell out what we mean. Mr Duff made no bones about the fact that the Union has only those powers that the Member States grant it. We should lay this down in very specific terms. When these powers are implemented, this is when the issues of subsidiarity and proportionality come into play.
Of course, the national parliaments have their part to play in this. This is also true of the Netherlands. The Upper and Lower Chambers, and the Joint Committee, have reflected on the question as to what Europe should and should not do. This is extremely beneficial for involvement."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"de koning van Hispanje heb ik altijd geëerd"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples