Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-10-10-Speech-3-029"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071010.16.3-029"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just a few days away from the conclusion of the Intergovernmental Conference we are preparing for the usual night and day of horse-trading, as has always been the case, which will end up, as always, with a compromise tending towards the lowest common denominator.
A look at the various texts – those that we have managed to obtain via pseudo-secret channels, because here very little is done in public – reveals that they are very complicated to read and are certainly user-unfriendly. The negotiators, however, as we very well know, are not at all interested in being user-friendly, in explaining or in involving their citizens in what ought to be an important time in their democratic lives.
On the contrary, back at the briefing stage we condemned the fact that the argument that 90% of the text of the Constitutional Treaty has been incorporated into the reform treaty cannot conceal the reality of an obscure text, full of annotations and derogations that weaken the European Union, particularly with regard to foreign policy and clarity of law.
This has been a negotiation totally in the hands of the governments, conducted behind the backs of citizens and profiting from the fact that endless linguistic and bureaucratic theorising has prevailed over passion and democratic participation, which for good or for ill had been a feature of the Convention stage and also the referendum stage.
Three of our Members participated in the work of the Intergovernmental Conference and followed the work of the jurists, but it cannot be denied that they failed to improve the transparency of the process to any significant degree, and although perhaps they succeeded in reducing the damage done, they were not able to make any specific improvements because they did not have the opportunity.
So, Mr Schulz, Mr Brok, Mr Barón and Mr Duff, to be honest I do not see the logic behind it. We ought to act in a considered manner, we ought to consider ourselves jointly responsible for this text and, although obviously I agree that we should try to ensure that the Member States ratify this text – although it now depends on what will happen in the final agreement – why should we go over the top? According to Mr Schulz, we are supposed to say, even here, among ourselves, that if this text is not adopted it will be a tragedy, because this text is fantastic, because this text here …. this text is horrible! Anyone reading it can easily see that it is not what the citizens wanted.
Having said that, it is obvious that it is better than nothing. Having said that, it is obvious that it is better – no Martin, calm down, because I am not saying that I want to reject it – I am merely saying that we ought to be responsible and credible in the eyes of the citizens and that even if this is not by any means a particularly adequate compromise, we will back it. We cannot lie, though, and we cannot say that this is the best we could manage, because the governments have hijacked this constitutional process from us and have made it what it is today, and it certainly could be much better than it is."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples