Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-06-18-Speech-3-011"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080618.2.3-011"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, as the Irish Prime Minister sets out for Brussels tomorrow, he might well chew over the words of the Irish pop group U2: ‘Where did it all go wrong?’
So my group’s advice to Council is this. Get on with the real business of Europe: boosting trade, combating climate change, fighting food and fuel price rises. Let those who will continue to ratify the Treaty. If necessary, make do with Nice. Use the passerelle clause to speed up Europe’s problem-solving potential. Forget the full-time president until you settle what the six-month
is going to do. Launch a comprehensive campaign to remind people why the EU exists, inform them how it works and explain why, like the proverbial pint of Guinness, it is good for you.
Europe means too much to too many to allow this crisis to stop it in its tracks.
The other heads of state and government should also reflect why, on the threshold of a new French presidency, we have come full circle since the last: from Nice to Nice.
There is clear evidence that a majority in every Member State supports the European Union. There is scant evidence that a majority in any favours further construction. We cannot say for sure that any treaty would get a majority in any country. Trust in institutions is ebbing away.
So it is no good for blithe spirits in Berlin to whistle that other U2 hit ‘With or without you’, or for people in Paris to push Ireland into voting again. As Brecht pointed out, you cannot dissolve the people. Though fewer than a million voted against, and in a landscape littered with lies, the people are not persuaded.
Why? First, because we’ve done little to convince them of the changes we champion. The Commission has a Plan ‘D’ for Dialogue, but our Member State governments have no equivalent. Certainly there is a role for Parliament and Commission in explaining the European Union – but also for every national government, every single day, not just when ratification of the latest treaty is due. And there is a job here, too, not just for political parties at European level, but for political parties in every Member State.
Second, while the EU has created great wealth, it is now amassed less honestly and spread less fairly. Our political and our business leaders must come to grips with huge ethical issues. And Mr Schulz, I am sorry you have only five heads of state of government these days, but those issues are no less valid in the countries run by Socialists than they are in any other!
Third, for all the freedoms for goods and for capital – and even for services – our Union is not famed for freedoms for its people. Cross-border complications in civil law – custody of children in divorce cases, problems with properties abroad – fill the mailbags of MEPs. A lack of safeguards in cross-border criminal cases and a cavalier approach to data protection add to that unease. What the EU promises in theory, it too often fails to deliver in practice.
This is the backdrop against which our response to Ireland must be measured. Here in this House, we want the new Treaty. We know it helps put right these wrongs. But beyond this forest of metal and glass, this is too little understood."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples